Hillsborough Assocaiton for Women Lawyers play the judges to a 2-2 draw June 1, 2009 Regular News THE HILLSBOROUGH ASSOCIATION FOR WOMEN LAWYERS held its annual softball game against the local judges, ending this year in a 2-2 tie. Judge Anthony Black was both the coach and a member of the judges’ team. HAWL’s team was coached by Judge Emily Peacock’s husband and HAWL member Mike Peacock. The friendly rivalry dates back to the 1980’s, when the judges and HAWL began the annual tradition. “Coach Black wanted you all to know that, based on the tie score, the judges retain possession of the coveted and highly prestigious Mendoza Trophy, just as in the America’s Cup and Ryder Cup competitions which require a win by the challenging team to cause a change in possession of the title and trophy,” said Judge James M. Barton III, one of HAWL’s directors-at-large, who played for the judge’s team. HAWL members have decided not to appeal Judge Black’s decision. This year’s game was organized by Gayle Carlson.
The next online session is Wednesday, January 8, at noon David Behrend, M.ED., director of Career Planning Services for Lawyers in Ardmore, Pennsylvania, and Judith Rushlow, executive director of Florida Lawyers Assistance, will offer a free career counseling program for lawyers via computer or telephone from the privacy of your home or office. The next session is on Wednesday, January 8 at 12 p.m. The meetings will be held on the second Wednesday of each month.To log on, go to http://global.gotomeeting.com/join/684399861. If the participant is using a telephone, call 213-493-0614. The access code is 684-399-861. The audio PIN will be shown after joining the meeting. The meeting ID is 694-399-861.Among those who may benefit from participating are:• Lawyers who are or should be exploring a career or employment change;• Recent law graduates unsure of the next opportunity;• Lawyers returning to the practice after an absence of time;• Older partners or judges searching for their “encore” career;• Lawyers unable to practice at this time;• Disenchanted lawyers unsure of alternative career options. Online career counseling available Dec 10, 2019 Top Stories
Subscribe Get instant access to must-read content today!To access hundreds of features, subscribe today! At a time when the world is forced to go digital more than ever before just to stay connected, discover the in-depth content our subscribers receive every month by subscribing to gasworld.Don’t just stay connected, stay at the forefront – join gasworld and become a subscriber to access all of our must-read content online from just $270.
The Office for Legal Complaints, the new body created by the Legal Services Act 2007 to handle complaints about solicitors, is to be based in Birmingham. The OLC, which has been allocated set-up costs of around £15m and annual running costs of £19.9m, will replace the Leamington Spa-based Legal Complaints Service next year. The LCS currently has nearly 350 staff, including around 200 caseworkers. Most are expected to have the right to move across to the new body under transfer of undertakings, protection of employment (TUPE) rules. Existing cases will continue to be dealt with by the LCS when the new body takes over. Law Society chief executive Des Hudson said he was ‘pleased the OLC will be based in a location enabling it to meet [the government’s] commitment that TUPE principles will apply to the transfer of staff.’
The Legal Services Commission’s telephone helpline is taking emergency calls only in an effort to reduce a backlog of work. Emergency calls are those requiring action within 48 hours or where the information being sought is not available elsewhere. In July, the commission cut the service to four hours a day. Now a website notice says non-emergency contacts should be made by email or post. Urgent emails will be replied to within three days and correspondence within two weeks.
To continue enjoying Building.co.uk, sign up for free guest accessExisting subscriber? LOGIN Subscribe to Building today and you will benefit from:Unlimited access to all stories including expert analysis and comment from industry leadersOur league tables, cost models and economics dataOur online archive of over 10,000 articlesBuilding magazine digital editionsBuilding magazine print editionsPrinted/digital supplementsSubscribe now for unlimited access.View our subscription options and join our community Get your free guest access SIGN UP TODAY Stay at the forefront of thought leadership with news and analysis from award-winning journalists. Enjoy company features, CEO interviews, architectural reviews, technical project know-how and the latest innovations.Limited access to building.co.ukBreaking industry news as it happensBreaking, daily and weekly e-newsletters Subscribe now for unlimited access
Logwin said that both new offices are connected to the company’s airfreight import and export hubs in Frankfurt and to the sea freight gateway system from Hamburg. The offices have also been integrated into the company’s globally standardised IT system.The new location at Halle/Leipzig is situated in the direct proximity of the airlines, so Logwin said staff will be able to expedite goods handling processes.Logwin is also celebrating ten years since it founded a company in Dubai. Established with seven employees, the office now employs 60 air and sea freight experts.The company’s Dubai branch regularly carries oversize and heavy consignments, such as mechanical components for power plants, systems for the oil and gas industry and entire water treatment systems. www.logwin-logistics.com
The webinar will take place on October 22 at 14:00 (EDT).The research report will include the identification of best practices for state automated permitting systems and pilot escort certification.Participants in this webinar will have an opportunity to provide valuable feedback to FHWA as it prepares its final report.Anyone that is interested can register here. www.scranet.org
The government is set to look ‘carefully’ at proposals from Lord Justice Jackson for fixed fees in all civil cases valued at up to £250,000, the Gazette has learned.Jackson, whose report formed the basis for far-reaching costs reforms in 2013, said last month the time has come to set recoverable costs in all types of civil claim. The judge has urged ministers to make reform an immediate priority, with a view to setting fixed recoverable costs by the end of this year.On the same day as Jackson’s speech, justice minister Lord Faulks responded to a written question in parliament, noting that the Ministry of Justice is already considering areas in which fixed costs might be ‘appropriate and workable’.An MoJ spokeswoman added: ‘This government remains supportive of the principle of extending fixed recoverable costs and will consider Lord Justice Jackson’s comment carefully.’The Gazette understands the department is giving its full backing to the Department of Health on fixed costs for clinical negligence claims. A consultation on the subject is imminent.Jackson’s recommendations go beyond just one type of claim. Indeed, he urged ministers to pause any proposals for clinical negligence cases to prevent a ‘Balkanisation’ of different rates for different cases.Jackson said practitioners’ experience of fixed fees in low-value claims up to £25,000 – as well as in the IP Enterprise Court – has been ‘satisfactory’.He even went as far as to suggest a grid of rates, minus disbursements and VAT, for each value of claim: £18,750 for claims up to £50,000; £30,000 for claims up to £100,000; £47,500 for claims up to £175,000; and £70,250 for claims up to £250,000.The judge said applying fixed costs to claims valued over £250,000 ‘would be too great a change for the profession’, although he suggested a universal costs regime could be implemented in the future.The proposals have been condemned across the profession as unworkable and harmful to access to justice. Law Society president Jonathan Smithers said Chancery Lane is ‘extremely concerned’ by the blanket nature of Jackson’s plans, suggesting the application of fixed costs for highly complex cases was ‘totally inappropriate’.Bar Council chair Chantal-Aimée Doerries QC said a cap on costs could make cases ‘unviable’ to pursue with experienced lawyers.
The Court of Appeal has ruled that a claimant should be awarded full costs of bringing her case despite losing on one of the issues.The claim in Webb v Liverpool Women’s NHS Foundation Trust resulted from the birth of Courtney Webb during which she suffered spinal injuries as a result of the alleged negligence of the hospital trust.Allegations fell into two main parts; the judge upheld the first and rejected the second.When it came to costs, the claimant’s solicitor said she was entitled to full recovery of damages for her injury and loss, after a Part 36 offer to settle for 65% of the damages had been rejected by the trust.Having decided the issue of liability, His Honour Judge Saffman ruled the claimant could not recover her costs for the second, unsuccessful, allegation.This meant deducting the fees of a midwifery expert and 25% of her solicitors’ time costs.Saffman said the court had discretion to make such an order, notwithstanding the success of the claim. In the circumstances, it was just to make an issues-based proportionate costs order.National firm Irwin Mitchell, representing the claimant, argued the second allegation had not been made or pursued unreasonably or irresponsibly, with both allegations concerning a single event.It was common, argued the lawyers, particularly in a relatively complex personal injury case, for a claimant to succeed on some allegations of negligence and to fail on others.‘The mere fact of her failing on a sensibly pursued allegation of negligence did not justify her being deprived of part of her costs,’ they added.Hill Dickinson, representing the defendant, said the judge had been entitled to restrict the claimant’s recovery to her costs relating to the first allegation and to have only those costs assessed on the indemnity basis.Sir Stanley Burnton (pictured), sitting in the Court of Appeal, said the eventual judgment was clearly more advantageous to the claimant than the proposal in her Part 36 offer.He said the two allegations were part of one event, despite relating to separate parts of the mother’s labour.‘The judge could not properly have deprived the claimant of her costs relating to the second allegation,’ he said.‘It cannot be said that it would be unjust for her to be awarded all her costs. Furthermore, in making his determination, the judge did not take into account, as he should have, the fact that the defendant could have avoided all the costs of the trial by accepting the claimant’s favourable part 36 offer.’