LexisNexis 2024 report: Has the partner track lost its lustre?
Find Out More
LexisNexis 2024 report
Disloyal lawyers: has the partner track lost its lustre?
According to a recent LexisNexis report of more than 500 lawyers across the UK (Disloyal lawyers: has the partner track lost its lustre?) Lawyers are increasingly opting not to pursue partnership positions within law firms due to concerns about burnout and work-life balance.
Some key findings of the report are:
Only a quarter of associates want to become a partner at their firm in the next five years.
Half of leaders have noticed a decline in the number of associates seeking to become a partner.
Work life balance is the most important factor for associates when seeking to move firms.
According to the report Elizabeth Rimmer, the CEO of LawCare, says. "Junior solicitors are no longer aspiring to be partners," she says. "They will likely take one look at the lifestyle of current partners and be put off."
How is Legal Studio different?
How is the consultancy model at Legal Studio different to the traditional model?
At Legal Studio we prioritize collaboration and support. Avoiding the politics and targets that can come with a traditional law firm. By becoming a Consultant Solicitor you are free to practice law on your own terms by choosing your own hours and clients. All while retaining up to ninety percent of the fees you generate.
We look after compliance, provide admin and cashier support as well as market leading legal software, freeing up your time to practice law and enjoy work.
At Legal Studio we are different to a traditional law firm and this difference is reflected in our consultant retention rate which was 100% in 2023.
Full report:
https://www.lexisnexis.co.uk/insights/disloyal-lawyers-and-the-partnership-model/index.html
Contact Us
2024 14 13
59
Top 10 Hiring Platform Firm with 100% Consultant Retention Rate
Find Out More
How Legal Studio is part of the movement redefining the legal profession
In the ever-evolving world of legal practice, the recently published, Codex Edge report has shone a light on a seismic shift toward platform law firms. This shift isn't just about changing where lawyers work; it's about transforming how they work, why they work, and importantly, how they feel about their work. At Legal Studio, we're riding the crest of this wave, not just participating in the trend but leading the charge toward a more fulfilling legal profession.
Here's what the report reveals and how we’re helping lawyers fall back in love with practicing law.
The Allure of Platform Law Firms
The report lays bare a truth many have felt but few have quantified: platform law firms are burgeoning. With a compound annual growth rate head and shoulders above traditional practices, these nimble, innovative firms are not just surviving; they're thriving. But why?
It's simple, really. Lawyers are seeking more from their careers than billable hours and bottom lines. They're looking for autonomy, flexibility, and the chance to do meaningful work on their terms. They're looking for a way to rediscover the joy in their work. And that's where platform law firms, (especially Legal Studio, and yes, we would say that) come into play.
The Legal Studio Difference
At Legal Studio, we're not just a platform law firm; we're a community. A tribe of lawyers from all walks of life who've found a home where they can practice law as they've always wanted to. But what makes us stand out in the crowded landscape of platform law firms?
- Diversity and Inclusion: We attract lawyers from diverse backgrounds and specialisations, not just because we're a platform for everyone, but because we believe diversity drives innovation. Whether you're a seasoned partner tired of the traditional grind or a mid-career lawyer looking for a more meaningful way to practice, you'll find a place here.
- Retention That Speaks Volumes: The Codex Edge report highlights the churn traditional firms face, losing talent as fast as they gain it. At Legal Studio, we're proud to buck that trend. Our retention rate? A staggering 100%. This isn't just a number; it's a testament to how well we support our lawyers, helping them build practices that are not only successful but enjoyable.
- A Culture of Enjoyment: Here's the secret sauce—enjoyment. We believe that enjoying your work is non-negotiable. This means creating an environment where lawyers have the autonomy to choose their projects, the flexibility to work how they want, and the support to grow personally and professionally. It's about making sure that every lawyer who joins us finds more than just a place to work; they find a way to work that brings joy back into the equation.
The Future is Bright (and Enjoyable)
As the Codex Edge report suggests, the trend toward platform law firms is more than just a blip; it's the future of legal practice. And at Legal Studio, we're not just ready for the future; we're shaping it. We offer a space where lawyers can truly enjoy their work, ensuring that they're not just part of our present but our future.
And, while the report shines a spotlight on the broader trends within the legal industry, it's the stories of individual lawyers finding joy, balance, and fulfilment at Legal Studio that truly illustrate the potential of platform law firms.
Our unique blend of support, community, and flexibility means that we're not just attracting lawyers from all walks of life; we're retaining them by helping them rediscover the joy in their work.
Link here to the Codex Edge report in full Platform Firms Report 01.2024 (codexedge.com) for all the data etc.
2024 28 02
59
Unopposed Lease Renewal: What is the Court's approach to new lease terms?
Find Out More
The Landlord and Tenant Act 1954 (the Act) allows business tenants’ leases to continue after the fixed term expiry date. Either party can then apply to court for a new lease to be entered into. The parties will negotiate the new terms but if they are unable to reach agreement the court can decide.
In order to effectively negotiate the terms of the new lease it is important to have in mind the legal principles that the court will consider if the terms of the renewed lease are not agreed between the parties.
The legal basis on which the terms, other than rent and duration, are determined by the court is governed by section 35 of the Act. This states that “….. in determining those terms the court shall have regard to the terms of the current tenancy and to all relevant circumstances”.
In O’May v City of London Real Property Co Ltd [1983] 2 AC 726, (O’May) the House of Lords laid down general principles on the court’s exercise of its discretion pursuant to section 35 of the Act.
The O’May principles
- The starting point is the terms of the original lease;
- The burden of persuading the court to change the terms of the original lease sits with the party proposing the change;
- The change in terms must be fair and reasonable in all of the circumstances;
- In considering the proposed change, the court should take into account the comparatively weak negotiating position of a sitting tenant requiring renewal, particularly in conditions of scarcity, and the general purpose of the Act which is to protect the business interests of the tenant so far as they are affected by the approaching termination of the current lease.
- The court will consider whether the detriment suffered by the non-proposing party can be compensated in monetary terms.
- The court retains a wide discretion.
However, while the courts have considered and exercised their discretion under section 35 of the Act on several occasions, areas of uncertainty remain.
Updating a term to take account of legislative updates (e.g., changes to the Use Classes Order) would likely amount to reasonable modernisation. It is less clear whether other lease updates (e.g. the inclusion of uninsured risk provisions or clauses specific to new environmental legislation, such as energy performance certificates or minimum energy efficiency regulations) would be ordered by a court even if they are now market standard in new leases. It should be noted, however, that market practice can be evidence of what is usually considered fair and reasonable by landlords and tenants (Edwards & Walkden (Norfolk) Ltd v City of London [2012] EWHC 2527 (Ch)).
Relevant industry standards and, in particular, the Code for Leasing Business Premises in England and Wales 2020 (2020 Code) may also provide a persuasive factor. In Edwards & Walkden, in relation to the inclusion of a term relating to rent and service charges, the Code of Practice issued by the Royal Institution of Chartered Surveyors entitled Service Charges in Commercial Property (2nd ed, 2011) was referred to by Sales J as evidence that the proposed term was fair and reasonable. As an aside, it should be noted that the 2020 Code is a RICS “practice statement” which means that parts of it (relating to heads of terms and negotiations) are mandatory for RICS members/regulated firms. The remaining parts are “good practice”. The RICS requires that the good practice requirements should also be followed save in “exceptional” circumstances and, though members may depart from the good practice requirements, the RICS may require them to “justify their decisions”.
Changing times: pandemic and green lease terms
The worldwide COVID-19 pandemic has prompted more recent significant changes in lease drafting. As a result the courts are having to consider whether to order lease terms that were simply not anticipated prior to March 2020.
Existing leases that are coming up for renewal now may not contain rent suspension terms in the event that the property is unable to open due to a pandemic. Such terms are starting to be included in some leases entered into post March 2020. The courts are therefore having to consider whether to include the terms within renewal leases.
Pandemic terms
On 2 July 2021, District Judge Jenkins sitting in the County Court at Brentford handed down judgment in Poundland Limited v Toplain Limited (unreported) (Poundland), an unopposed lease renewal concerning a Poundland store in Twickenham.
This case considered the question as to whether rent suspension terms will be ordered in renewal leases. The tenant requested a 50% reduction in rent and service charge where, broadly speaking, it was unable to open due to a lockdown. The parties were unable to agree on the principle of the inclusion of a rent suspension term. The term was not in the existing lease so the tenant had the burden of satisfying the court that the inclusion of the new term was fair and reasonable. DJ Jenkins declined to introduce such a term, following the guidance in O’May. He found that it would not be fair and reasonable “to impose on the landlord a sharing of the risk in circumstances over which the [landlord] would have no control whilst the [tenant] may have some by reference to reliefs or schemes that might be available to them by the government”. The tenant’s proposed suspensions of compliance with other obligations, and of the right to forfeit, were also rejected by DJ Jenkins.
Green lease terms
With the UK aiming to achieve Net Zero by 2050, the past few years have seen the introduction of a variety of reforms, policies and initiatives to achieve this objective. Green lease terms have become prevalent over the past ten years, so that many leases coming up for renewal now will not have included them.
From 1 April 2018 landlords of non-domestic private rented property have, subject to certain exemptions, been prohibited from granting a new or renewal tenancy unless they have made all the relevant energy efficiency improvements for the property: regulations 27 and 29 of the Energy Efficiency (Private Rented Property) (England and Wales) Regulations 2015 (SI 2015/962). The aforementioned regulations brought into force Minimum Energy Efficiency Standards (MEES Regulations).
From 1 April 2023 landlords who continue to rent such sub-standard properties even under a continuing tenancy will be liable to be fined up to a maximum of £150,000.
It is, therefore, extremely beneficial to landlords to review whether the terms of their existing and new leases will give them sufficient rights to carry out necessary works; and will protect them from acts or omissions of their tenants which might place them in breach of the MEES Regulations.
The courts are aware of the burden imposed on landlords by the existing MEES Regulations. However, whilst more landlords seek to improve the energy efficiency of their properties, the case of Clipper Logistics Plc v Scottish Equitable Plc (unreported, County Court at Sheffield, 7 March 2022) (Clipper) suggests that the court may not allow landlords’ to share their green liability where to do so would impose additional burdens on tenants. In Clipper the County Court had the opportunity to consider the scope of section 35 of the Act to include modernising provisions which seek to protect the landlord from risks associated with the MEES Regulations, an example of so called "green lease" terms.
In Clipper the court was required to determine whether the following ‘green lease’ terms proposed by the landlord should be included in a renewal lease.
- Prohibition on alterations that would result in a sub-standard Energy Performance Certificate (EPC) rating
- An indemnity for the cost of a new EPC if the tenant makes alterations
- An obligation to maintain the current EPC rating and to carry out remedial works to restore the EPC if it fails to do so
Having considered the landlord’s proposed green lease terms, the judge held:
"I entirely accept that it is reasonable for the Defendant to wish to have protection against the undoubtedly adverse consequences for it which an energy rating below ‘E’ would or could bring. I am not persuaded, however, that there is any reasonable need for all of the new clauses which the Defendant proposes in order that sufficient protection is in this respect afforded to it.”
The court’s starting position was that it is the landlord’s responsibility to comply with energy efficiency regulations. It acknowledged that, without any mechanism to regulate the tenant’s actions, a landlord could be “placed in breach of the regulations through no fault of their own”. However, given the current provisions of the lease, it did not consider all of the proposed clauses to be necessary. Following O’May principles the court decided:
- The existing prohibitions in the lease on alterations were sufficient to protect the landlord from tenant acts that could damage the EPC rating of the property.
- The indemnity would place too significant a burden on the tenant
- The requirement of the tenant to “return the premises to the Landlord with the same EPC rating as it has as the date of this Lease” was a fair and reasonable addition to protect the landlord from inaction by the tenant over a 10 year term and this change reflected the coming into force of the MEES Regulations 2018.
It should be noted that Poundland and Clipper were County Court decisions and so whilst the decisions may be indicative of the approach the courts are likely to take going forward, it does not act so as to bind them.
Practice considerations
The question of what is “fair and reasonable” requires the court to look beyond the original lease. It is clear from the cases that the courts are prepared to exercise their discretion to authorise departures from existing lease terms in the interests of justice and fairness. However, the court will consider the implications of all of the relevant circumstances and a departure from existing terms may not be justified if it results in an unreasonable change to the commercial position of the parties. The cases indicate that while the court will give consideration to changing practices and external forces the court will give primacy to the commercial bargain struck between the parties and be unlikely to give effect to any new term which is particularly burdensome on either party.
For more information, please contact Patrick Griffin on 0113 247 3800 or by emailing patrick.griffin@legalstudio.co.uk
The above article is not intended to be legal advice. Every case is fact specific and requires advice tailored to the issues arising in that particular case.
2022 51 08
401
Neurodiversity and Disability Discrimination Law
Find Out More
Many employers have become increasingly adept over the years at understanding the difficulties that can be encountered by disabled employees and the additional measures that may need to be put in place to compensate for those difficulties and enable the disabled employee to participate effectively in the workplace.
Thanks in part to increasing public awareness generally and the gradual erosion of prejudice and misunderstanding, conditions which were previously glossed over and ignored are now being discussed more openly. Old stigmas and outdated views are gradually being dismantled and employers are beginning to understand that a pro-active and informed approach to neurodiversity can result in lasting and positive outcomes.
What is neurodiversity?
In its simplest terms, neurodiversity refers to a difference in brain processing which impacts upon an individual’s learning, sensory processing and social interaction.
Current research suggests that as much as 15% of the general population are neurodivergent.
Some of the more commonly encountered neurodiverse conditions include dyslexia, dyscalculia, autism and ADHD.
Are all neurodivergent employees disabled?
The short answer is no. Neurodivergence exists on a spectrum. Accordingly, there are many individuals with a neurodivergent condition who would not class themselves as being disabled.
The key legislation for employment law purposes is the Equality Act 2010 ("EqA"). The EqA confirms that the key test for establishing whether an individual will be considered as being disabled (for the purposes of the Act) is as follows:
- Does the person have a physical or mental impairment?
- Does that impairment have an adverse effect on their ability to carry out normal day-to-day activities?
- Is that effect substantial?
- Is that effect long-term?Accordingly, each case is assessed on its own merits.
I’ve heard neurodiversity being referred to as a "hidden" or "invisible" disability what does that mean?
That’s a good question. These terms are often used by lawyers and tribunals in cases involving neurodivergent employees because unlike some of the more obvious physical and mental impairments, neurodiverse conditions may not be self-evident, Additionally, neurodiverse conditions sometimes only impact or become evident in particular situations, or in relation to certain types of duties, requests or responsibilities.
What legal obligations does the EqA create for my organisation in respect of neurodivergent employees?
The EqA confirms that organisations must:
- not treat employee less favourably because of their neurodiversity (direct discrimination);
- not treat employees unfavourably for a reason arising from their neurodiversity (unfavourable treatment) unless that treatment can be justified;
- not subject the neurodivergent employee to unlawful harassment, unjustified indirect discrimination or victimisation; and
- pro-actively explore whether reasonable adjustments can be made.
Are there any particular risks that we should be aware of?
Yes, there are. There’s a legal concept in discrimination law known as "constructive knowledge". Put simply, if an employer is not fixed with actual knowledge of the disability, liability can still arise where there were evidence and clues which should have prompted it to make further enquires.
Additionally, when assessing a neurodiverse condition in order to decide whether it has a "substantial and long-term effect on an individual’s day-to-day activities", employers must ignore any medication, coping mechanisms (such as counselling or masking) or treatment interventions which may mask the true effect of the neurodivergent condition.
Our organisation wants to become better at understanding and handling neurodiversity. What can we do?
Your organisation could consider adopting one or more of the following steps:
- Try to avoid "medicalising" the issue. Focus instead on trying to understand how a neurodivergent employee’s condition impacts upon them and then work with them to try and identify what adjustments can be made and whether any additional support can be provided.
- Enquire sensitively (remember there’s still a lot of stigma attached to neurodiversity) and investigate fully. Whenever possible talk with both the employee and any relevant experts. Invaluable information and support can also be obtained from specialist or charitable organisations.
- Avoid the trap of focusing solely on the individual employee’s areas of difficulty; consider also which tasks play to their strengths. This might lead on to redesigning a job role or adopting a more flexible and "person centred" approach.
- Consider whether any internal management process needs to be amended in order to minimise any adverse impact upon the employee and to maximise the prospect of active, responsive and meaningful participation.
Please contact us if you’d like more information about the issues raised in this article and/or or to find out more about the various Employment Law and HR related policies, procedures, guidance and workplace diversity training that we provide.
Disclaimer: the information set out above does not constitute legal advice and it is provided for general information purposes only. No warranty, whether express or implied is given and neither the author or Legal Studio shall be liable for any technical, editorial, typographical or other errors or omissions within the information provided.
2022 57 14
289
No Fault Divorce - what does it mean?
Find Out More
On 6 April 2022, the law changed in relation to applications for divorce. It is now possible to start divorce proceedings simply on the basis that the marriage has broken down. This is a massive shift from the old system and has been much anticipated by family lawyers and clients.
Today, I filed my first divorce application on behalf of a client under the new “no fault“ divorce rules. It felt strange to only have to indicate that the reason for the application was irretrievable breakdown of marriage. Under the “old” divorce law, a couple who had been separated for less than 2 years could only commence divorce by relying on a “fault” ground - either unreasonable behaviour or adultery. There were “no fault“ grounds under the old law, but this required a couple to be separated for at least 2 years and, if separated for less than 5 years, to be reliant upon the other spouse consenting to the divorce. This meant a couple, who maybe had been separated for a few months (as my client in today’s application) would either have to blame the other spouse for the breakdown of the marriage or wait 2 years for the 2 years separation with consent ground. Even if it was the case that neither spouse was in a rush to re-marry, the fact of having to wait for 2 years to commence the divorce application often meant they felt unable to fully move on with their lives. They were tied to each other financially, because the court cannot give effect to financial clean break until decree nisi stage of the divorce proceedings. A pension sharing order could not be made until the consent order was filed and could not be implemented until decree absolute. The couple remained tied to each other financially, even where they had separated amicably.
This led me to think, does this mean couples will separate more readily or that it will be “easier” to get a divorce? Certainly that is how it has been portrayed in the press, but in my experience (20 years as a family solicitor) if a couple wished to separate formally and finalise their finances, they would quite often resort to the “unreasonable behaviour” ground. Even if they kept the allegations mild and tried to agree them with each other in advance, it was still difficult for the respondent spouse to find themselves unable to put their side of a marital breakdown across in the divorce application. And even in the most amicable cases, this could lead to ill-feeling. Where there are young children involved and the couple remain in each other’s lives for a significant period of time, an unreasonable behaviour divorce petition could leave a sour taste.
The new system is, in my view, much kinder in its approach - it even allows for a joint application to be made (alongside the option of a sole application). Already, my experience of this one divorce application I have filed, it has a different feeling to it. I got the impression that the couple had felt much more comfortable approaching matters on a “no fault” basis. I have a number of clients who have waited for the new law to come into effect before looking to commence the divorce application. Over time, we will see whether there is an increase in divorce rates, but I cannot see that being the case. What I can see is it leading to more amicable separations.
For more information contact Angela Lally on 0113 247 3804 or email at angela.lally@legalstudio.co.uk
2022 39 21
321