Loading...

Follow Excello Law Blogs – ExcelloLaw.co.uk on Feedspot

Continue with Google
Continue with Facebook
or

Valid

In April 2017, the government abandoned its controversial plan to hike probate fees. The Ministry of Justice (MoJ) had been projected to raise an additional £300m a year to fund the courts and tribunals service (HMCTS). A new sliding scale schedule was planned with fees starting at £300, while for estates worth more than £2m the fee was set to be £20,000. However, widespread opposition caused the plan to be shelved.

But probate fee plans are back – with revisions: less than last year’s plan, but still a huge increase nonetheless. A sliding scale based on the value of the estate will replace the current flat rates: £215 for individuals making an application in person to the probate registry and £155 when applying through a solicitor.

Estates valued at £5000 or more currently have to pay the cost of an application for a grant of representation. The new proposals increase the no fee threshold from £5,000 to £50,000, relieving the smallest estates. Under these proposals, the existing fee scale will be replaced by another new sliding scale which rises in line with the estate’s value, ranging from £250 up to a maximum of £6,000, rather than the £20,000 originally planned.

So will it work? In reality, the revised plan may do more harm than good.

The proposed system will band fees according to the estate value from April 2019: estates over £2m will pay £6,000; between £1.6m and £2m the fee will be £5,000; and between £1m and £1.6m, £4,000. For estates between £500,000 and £1m, the figure will rise to £2,500, while those in the £50,000 to £300,000 bracket will pay £250. Estates of less than £50,000 will pay nothing.

These amendments may cause real difficulty for estates valued between £500,000 and £1m. In most estates, residential property is the principal asset and in some parts of the UK, house prices in excess of £500,000 are commonplace. With few or no liquid assets in the estate, £2,500 is a sizeable amount to find in addition to funeral expenses, and sometimes, Inheritance Tax (IHT) as well.

When the probate registry issues a grant of representation to an estate, whether it is £50,000 or £500,000, the probate process is very similar. The fee increases are, arguably, an indirect tax raid on high-value homes.

The new figures may be different, but the proposed charges still bear no relation to probate cost: they remain a form of taxation, with charities among those affected since the estate value to which they are entitled will be reduced. Charitable exemption applies for IHT, but not for probate fees. The Institute of Legacy Management (ILM) suggests that the proposals could cause the charity sector to lose more than £10m per year in legacy income, and is lobbying for a rebate or fee exemption for charitable estates.

Iniially, it might seem that most beneficiaries of higher value estates have less to worry about from the revised fee schedule. The Justice Minister Lucy Frazer rejected suggestions that higher fees would make the probate process unaffordable for some executors, such as the deceased’s children, who are frequently the direct beneficiaries of an estate.

What remains unclear is how executors will pay the new fees and, because assets are frozen until the executors receive the Grant of Probate, how money will then be recovered from the estate. They already have to borrow quite often to pay IHT in advance; now they will have to borrow more to pay for the additional cost of a Grant of Probate.

Since beneficiaries of the estate are not always the ones appointed as Executors, there is also concern for non-beneficiary executors who face multiple issues as a result of the proposed fee increases. Little sympathy may exist for professional executors who find themselves facing an increased cost outlay prior to recovery, but this is likely to have a knock-on effect: professional executors will raise their fees to recover interest on their increased borrowings.

In a written statement to Parliament outlining the proposed schedule revision for probate fees, Lucy Frazer MP said: “This new banded fee model represents a fair and more progressive way to pay for probate services compared to the current flat fee. We are also confident these fees will never be unaffordable.” Many will disagree.

It remains to be seen how the government will respond to the 810 organisations that have already disagreed with the proposals, labelling them “excessive”, “discriminatory”, and “unjustified”. In the wake of last year’s proposals, the House of Lords secondary legislation committee said: “Different groups of customers should not be charged different amounts for a service costing the same” adding that the proposed probate fees could arguably amount to a “misuse of the fee-levying power”. So what has changed this time?

Published in Professional Advisor – 20/11/18

The post Probate fee hike proposed yet again – more harm than good? appeared first on ExcelloLaw.co.uk.

Read Full Article
  • Show original
  • .
  • Share
  • .
  • Favorite
  • .
  • Email
  • .
  • Add Tags 

There is a hive of mergers happening in the world today. Currently, two prominent mergers are taking place in Europe. One is the Siemens-Alstom merger with combined revenues of €15.3 billion[1]. The other is the ThyssenKrupp-TATA steel merger with combined revenues of €15 billion and expected to produce annual synergies of up to €600 million[2].

In any merger, there are several key points which procurement and supply chain professionals would need to consider. The following equation adheres to the simple logic that Commercial considerations should be determined by Financial, Legal, Operational, Accounting, and Taxation aspects. In short: C = f {FLOAT}.

Commercial Considerations

Two entities coming together could bring value in the arrangements with your suppliers and you could get values and benefits that as a smaller organization could not. Create a plan (or even a GANTT chart) to manage the impact of the merger on your business after looking at the FLOAT factors below.

Financial

All your current procurement and supply chain matters have to be reviewed and looked at. Pricing, quantities, qualities and margins can be relooked based on possibly increased demands and orders being placed. There could be some savings in procurement for the benefit of the business as you could benefit from a higher bulk discount or better hedging for your forward contracts. Get finance in to work on helping you crunch numbers to see your savings.

Legal

Get the legal team in to look at all the existing contracts and arrangements. The risk is early termination due to mergers and there could be a need to get pre-approvals from suppliers to transfer (novate or assign) the contracts to the merged entity or new operating companies.

Operational

This is probably the biggest point. Operationally, there will be significant challenges on your end-to-end processes and procedures. You will have to merge 2 different business practices, 2 different work ethos, 2 different sets of experienced people and coordinating all of them to work together. This is a massive task. You may need to modify internal arrangements, reporting lines, logistics systems and your IT systems. There will be changes you need to manage and you need to manage changes well. The most common problem is due to the 2 different work ethos, the team that works together will conflict in dealing with matters. They need a way to resolve it. Don’t expect overnight changes. It’s a process and will take time.

Accounting

Accounting wise, there could be some changes due to different accounting practices and standards being used. Check with accounts to get your business in line so that your accounting is straight and you do not take an accounting hit.

Taxation

The taxation issues would not be the same anymore. You have certain issues that would remain – like customs duties but some others could change. Work with your tax team to make sure that your arrangements are tax efficient and that you get the full benefit of taxation treaties and laws.

Conclusion

A merger no matter how large or small is a drastic change in a business. Remember that to survive a merger, you need to stay FLOAT.

[1] https://www.dw.com/en/siemens-and-alstom-sign-rail-merger-deal-to-compete-with-china/a-43113411

[2] https://www.ft.com/content/4504f0b4-9dc6-11e7-9a86-4d5a475ba4c5

Abridged version published in Supply Management – 7 September

The post To survive a merger you need to stay FLOAT appeared first on ExcelloLaw.co.uk.

Read Full Article
  • Show original
  • .
  • Share
  • .
  • Favorite
  • .
  • Email
  • .
  • Add Tags 

The case of Owens v Owens is unusual. Not because Mrs Tini Owens is a woman of 68 who wants to divorce her 80 year-old husband, Hugh: after all, in 2016, there were 114,000 divorce petitions in England & Wales. What marks out the Owens case is that Mr Owens contested the divorce – one of 800 such cases a year, and one of just 17 that proceeded to a final hearing. But more than that, the Owens case was especially unusual because it was the only one contested divorce to reach the Supreme Court, which it did in July.

Mrs Owens’ grounds for divorce were simple. Following a marriage that had lasted 40 years, she was unhappy in a loveless union which had broken down. And on that point, the appeal failed. As a result, the practical affect of the court’s majority ruling is that she must stay married to a man whom she wants to divorce; she is handcuffed by the law. The supreme court judges “reluctantly” told her that she had to remain as Mr Owens’ wife because a joyless marriage is not adequate grounds for a divorce if one spouse refuses to agree. Mr Owens’ lawyers argued that his wife has failed to prove that the marriage has broken down irretrievably.

In what the media labelled a “lamentable case” which showed our marriage laws to be “archaic”, the decision of five supreme court judges upheld earlier rulings by a family court and the court of appeal. “The appeal of Mrs Owens must be dismissed. She must remain married to Mr Owens for the time being,” the supreme court judge Lord Wilson said in his ruling. “Parliament may wish to consider whether to replace a law which denies to Mrs Owens any present entitlement to a divorce in the above circumstances,” he added with judicial understatement.

It was not a sudden breakdown. That had happened thirteen years ago and the couple finally separated when Mrs Owens moved out of the family home in 2015. There is no doubt, therefore, that the judges found the case troubling when they dismissed the appeal, albeit on a strict interpretation of the law, even though it was manifestly obvious that the marriage was long since over. In delivering his judgment, Lord Wilson added: “the Family court takes no satisfaction when obliged to rule that a marriage which has broken down must nevertheless continue in being”.

The key point in this strict interpretation of the law is that the petitioner when relying on unreasonable behaviour must show “not that the behaviour is unreasonable but that the expectation of continued life together should be unreasonable.” In practice, this interpretation has not been used in divorce cases throughout Britain for many years. Most petitions succeed on behaviour based on only a few, often fairly ‘mild, non inflammatory’ examples. They succeed because in most cases the respondent does not elect to contest them since they also wish to divorce.

Resolution, the professional group for 6500 family lawyers intervened in the Supreme Court hearing to make submissions that the law should be changed. They have long campaigned that the Matrimonial Causes Act 1973 should be amended to enable people to obtain a divorce on a ‘no fault’ basis. But as the court said, only Parliament can change the law. With the impact of Brexit, Family law reform is not high on the government’s agenda. In the meantime, Mrs Owens will have to stay married to her husband until 2020, at which point they will have been separated for long enough to justify the divorce under current legislation.

Published in Lawyer Monthly – 28 August 2018

The post Family law reform long overdue in light of Owens v Owens divorce appeal appeared first on ExcelloLaw.co.uk.

Read Full Article
  • Show original
  • .
  • Share
  • .
  • Favorite
  • .
  • Email
  • .
  • Add Tags 

Since it first became widespread last October, #MeToo has been widely adopted by millions of Twitter users. Its endurance shows that the hashtag is much more than a temporary social media phenomenon. Instead, it has become symbolic of a worldwide movement against sexual harassment and assault which is designed to produce permanent change in how men treat women. This is particularly important in the workplace, where #MeToo has developed a special significance because that is where many of the problems occur.

Harvey Weinstein will go down in history as the #MeToo catalyst: scores of actresses on both sides of the Atlantic have documented their personal traumatic experiences of his alleged abuse. The criminal activities of men such as Weinstein, and other prominent figures who have misused their positons of power, has thrown a spotlight on the issue. The international use of #MeToo not only highlights the global prevalence of sexual harassment, it has also enabled voices that were previously silent to be heard.

The risks of being lenient about the problem are manifestly apparent to many companies. As a result, they have become proactive in putting measures in place to prevent it arising, where possible, and to take swift action when it does. This is perhaps best demonstrated by Netflix. A new sexual harassment policy for the company’s staff, including a five second time limit when looking at another employee. To look for any longer is deemed creepy and inappropriate.

Although it is based on good intentions, the introduction of a no staring policy cannot easily work in practice because it is almost impossible, legally, to prove how long one person is staring at another. Netflix has introduced a further preventative policy: employees are not allowed to ask co-workers for their mobile phone numbers. This seems equally unworkable given that such a request is commonplace among members of a working group or team in many organisations.

The critical question with each policy is one of context and degree. For example, staring into space when someone happens to be within your line of vision cannot be regarded as harassment, although a permanent fixed stare could well be. Beyond harassment, habitual staring might be seen as intimidation or bullying.

Equally, repeated and persistent requests for a colleague’s mobile number could be construed as harassment. But a casual “what’s your number” request happens every day in almost every business as co-workers ask the question without a hint of harassment. Making a subsequent complaint to an HR manager about it indicating that someone has asked for your number is very unlikely to viewed a serious transgression by any organisation.

In summary, the Netflix policies are neither reasonable nor workable because the spirit of the law risks being lost in the formulaic nature of the new rules. We have been here before. Similar approaches have failed previously, such as when flexible working rules were over prescriptive and when grievances had to set out in writing at a particular time and in a particular way in order to be valid. Such formulaic prescriptions can lead to unfair loopholes and absurd complaints such as timing the length of a stare. The idea is not to micromanage staff behaviour, but to train them to understand the objective of the law and acts that may fall outside it.

The Netflix policy examples are a very long way removed from the criminal acts allegedly committed by Weinstein. How companies act to prevent such behaviour, or something which might lead to it, and how they should respond must be both proportionate and pragmatic. Overreacting to events or virtue signalling does little to serve the interests of a company’s employees. The new Netflix policies have, according to reports, significantly disrupted production on its House of Cards programme, where actors who spend many hours on set together can no longer look at each other, except briefly, or hug each other – as actors often do.

To a degree, the policies potentially undermine the serious nature of the #MeToo hashtag which has dramatically shaped the national discourse – and rightly so. At a time when it is imperative that companies adopt and maintain compliant sexual harassment policies, making sure that they are feasible and sensible is equally important.

In determining whether looking at someone or requesting their number constitutes something approaching sexual harassment or assault, the behaviour would need to be serious, sustained, or both. When applying the law and deciding what is appropriate for each business, all employees certainly need to be familiar with harassment-free employment policies.

But to allow such policies to work in practice, they also need to be reasonable and sensible in countering behaviour that is clearly inappropriate. No matter how comprehensive or well-drafted the scope and impact of sound employment policies may be, they can only go so far in endeavouring to shape the nature of how each individual chooses to behave. Ultimately, personal conduct cannot be wholly determined by rulebooks, but rather by common courtesy, mutual respect and plenty of common sense.

Published in Lawyer Monthly – 6 August 2018

The post Sexual harassment policies in the workplace; draft with plenty of common sense appeared first on ExcelloLaw.co.uk.

Read Full Article
  • Show original
  • .
  • Share
  • .
  • Favorite
  • .
  • Email
  • .
  • Add Tags 

To much acclaim, the Supreme Court recently found against Pimlico Plumbers and in favour of Gary Smith, a self-employed plumber and heating engineer who had worked exclusively for the company for six years. But in doing so, it did not make new law.

In what has been widely referred to as a landmark decision for workers’ rights, the Supreme Court ruling may have significant ramifications for freelance workers, especially those in the gig economy, and could affect cases involving Deliveroo, and the cab companies Uber and Addison Lee, both of which are in dispute with their drivers over their employment status. But the outcome of these cases is not certain since the court’s unanimous judgment does not create an automatic precedent.

The Supreme Court ruled that despite being VAT-registered and paying self-employment tax, Smith was entitled to employment rights, such as holiday and sick pay. The appeal upheld earlier decisions by the Court of Appeal and the original employment tribunal, which was “entitled to conclude” that Mr Smith was a worker. Although the judgment emphasises the need for urgent legislative reform, to the disappointment of many, the decision does not establish any new legal principles.

Not yet the death of the gig economy

‘Is this the death of the gig economy?’ ran one newspaper headline. The answer is not necessarily, or at least, not yet. The Court took into account certain factors in rejecting Pimlico’s argument that Smith was “self-employed” and not of “worker” status – and therefore exempt from the entitlements and protections stipulated by current employment law.

During his employment by Pimlico, Smith suffered a heart attack, claiming that his subsequent request for a three-day week was rejected, the van that he rented from Pimlico was taken away, and that he was then dismissed. The judgment delivered by the Supreme Court turned on the specific facts of the case, but did not develop the law beyond existing legislation.

Pimlico argued that Smith was self employed: he was able to refuse work and also assumed financial risks if clients did not pay for the work done. The Supreme Court rejected this, determining that an overall review of the working relationship led them to conclude that Smith was a worker and not self employed, based on the following:

Smith’s services were marketed through Pimlico which required him to give notice to comply with administrative instructions and exercised strict conditions over when and how much was paid to him (payments were even described as wages at one point); he wore a branded uniform, drove a branded van with a tracker, and carried an identity card; in his contract, there were post-termination clauses which restricted his ability to compete after his employment was terminated and terminology which made reference to ‘dismissal’ and ‘misconduct’.

But a victory for Smith does not, of itself, mean a victory for every other worker in the gig economy, or indeed in any employment where the circumstances are different from those pertaining to Smith. Nevertheless, the judgment serves as a very clear warning to employers that they should examine their employment agreements very carefully and keep under review the nature of their relationship with each employee. This means looking carefully at the drafting of such agreements at the start of the engagement, but also considering the nature of the relationship as it develops.

Review of current legislation urgently needed

In light of recent social and technological advancements, current legislation is woefully out of date: a review is urgently needed. Even though the decision does not establish any new legal principles, it does, however, add significant weight to the demands of businesses, especially those in the gig economy, which are anxiously seeking greater clarity from the government. In response, ministers will hopefully now take long overdue action and implement legislative reform regarding worker status, freelancers and the gig economy.

Following the Supreme Court judgment, Smith’s case – for disability discrimination, unlawful deduction from wages and holiday pay – can now return to the employment tribunal. In the meantime, legislative reform is essential to curb the tide of similar disputes coming before the courts in order to provide greater clarity for employers and employees alike on worker status. Quite how the government will seek to strike the right balance between the two remains to be seen.

The post Supreme Court decision against Pimlico Plumbers emphasises necessity of legislative reform appeared first on ExcelloLaw.co.uk.

Read Full Article
  • Show original
  • .
  • Share
  • .
  • Favorite
  • .
  • Email
  • .
  • Add Tags 

In excess of a million EU enterprises currently trade through online platforms in order to reach their customers, while it is estimated that around 60% of private consumption and 30% of public consumption of goods and services related to the total digital economy are transacted via online intermediaries.

The proposal for a regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council on promoting fairness and transparency for business users of online intermediation services was published by the EC at the end of April. It appears to be based upon its core principle of creating a level playing field for comparable digital services. Accordingly, the language used in relation to the key aspects of the contractual relationship between online platforms is typically moderate and understated.

According to the proposal, although it offers great potential in terms of efficient access to (cross-border) markets, European businesses cannot fully exploit the potential of the online platform economy ‘due to a number of potentially harmful trading practices and a lack of effective redress mechanisms in the Union.’ This is at odds with the other EC policy principles: ensuring that online platforms behave responsibly to protect core values; fostering trust, transparency and ensuring fairness; and keeping markets open and non-discriminatory to foster a data-driven economy.

The draft regulation was initially developed for app stores, but the EC decided to extend its scope to include other categories of intermediary, like search engines and hotel booking services. Companies are not named individually, but the EC’s target is unambiguous from the wording of the proposal: platforms such as those used by Amazon, Apple’s App Store, and the booking service offered by booking.com– together with search engines, most notably Google, the dominant player in the market. By targeting app stores, search engines, and e-commerce sites, the new regulations should, in theory, coerce the tech giants to adopt more ethical digital business practices more in line with the EC’s guiding principles.

Tech giants benefit disproportionately compared to smaller competitors

The online intermediation activities of the tech giants ‘usually benefit from important data-driven direct and indirect network effects which tend to result in only a limited number of successful platforms per intermediated segment of the economy.’ At least according to the EC proposal. In plain English, they benefit disproportionately compared to their much smaller competitors.

A key element of the proposal is an attempt to enable those small businesses that rely on much bigger platforms for their business to take active steps in dealing with unfair business practices by creating a “fair, transparent and predictable business environment for smaller businesses and traders.”

What does the EC proposal specifically suggest in its draft regulation? First, the imposition of transparency obligations for business users: the big tech owners of ‘online intermediation services’. Second, the introduction of collective redress for failure to comply. Specifically, the draft proposal suggests that if they fall short of the tighter competition standards, then developers and small businesses should be able collectively to sue online intermediation services- platforms such as Google, Apple and Amazon.

The new rules would also require those intermediaries which have 50 staff or more to have internal complaint departments. They would also be encouraged to hire independent mediators who could handle out-of-court settlements. Costs for setting up these systems would be undertaken by the tech companies themselves. Unsurprisingly, their response is unenthusiastic. They argue that such a system would inevitably increase the administrative and cost burden with the further possibility of protracted and expensive legal action.

Transparency re Google rankings

Terms and conditions also fall under the transparency umbrella: these must be clear and easily available, and when any changes are made, a minimum notice period must be complied with. Should it happen, there also has to be clear and precise explanation given of the reasons why a professional user has been suspended, demoted or delisted from their platform. The net effect is that Google and its smaller rival search engines will have to provide businesses with a pretty sound analysis of how their ranking algorithms work in practice. They will also have to answer the controversial question of whether companies are able to pay in order to generate higher rankings.

Collective redress would be applicable in various circumstances, such as the changing of terms and conditions without any explanation or the demotion of a business’ search engine ranking without any clear reason being given – should these not be dealt with adequately by an in-house complaints mechanism or through mediation. Until now, such collective redress has only been available to consumers.

Perhaps inevitably, the proposal has provoked strong reaction from some of the parties being targeted, attracting criticism from major industry groups, such as the Computer & Communication Industry Association. A trio of big names – Amazon, Google and eBay – are among its members. They argue that adequate mechanisms are already in place to resolve any such complaints.

They further suggest that the EU is pursuing a political objective, trying to step in order to protect the underdog when the tech giants and their working practices are not always easy to fathom. The recent Facebook debacle concerning its involvement with Cambridge Analytica is a prime example of how easily things can spiral out of control when consumers become complacent and automatically accept usage without the appropriate questions being asked on a regular basis.

Finally, there is the inevitable question of whether these draft legislations can ever be relied upon to have real substance in practice. For now, that remains an unknown. Either way, the lengthy bureaucratic process may take several years before it is implemented as EU law. First, the EU Parliament has to approve the draft proposal following which every EU government will also have to validate them separately. While this takes time, subject to the draft rules being approved, businesses may eventually be allowed to be represented in court by industry groups or non-profit organisations.

Published in Global Banking and Finance Review – 8 June 2018

The post EU proposal for fairness and transparency across online platforms targets tech giants appeared first on ExcelloLaw.co.uk.

Read Full Article
  • Show original
  • .
  • Share
  • .
  • Favorite
  • .
  • Email
  • .
  • Add Tags 

The gender pay gap reporting deadline has come and gone. The results are in and City law firms have filed their figures. So how did the legal sector perform and what can be done to address the issues of diversity and flexible working which underpin much of the gap that still exists?

But first, the legislation which required companies to report. Despite the Equal Pay Act 1970, which made it illegal to discriminate between men and women in terms of pay and conditions, a significant gap still exists between the genders. In an attempt to remedy this, the Equality Act 2010 (Gender Pay Gap Information) Regulations 2017 became effective on 6 April 2017. These regulations introduced annual gender pay gap reporting – mandatory for every company or business which has more than 250 employees.

Over 10,000 businesses met the April deadline while 1557 did not. Unsurprisingly, no law firm has yet been identified as one of the miscreants. For those organisations which did report, the data shows that the overall median pay gap is 9.7%.

Analysis of how law firms shaped up was provided by the FT, the Sunday Times and Legal Week, among others. The mean gender pay gap for law firms is 20.5% and the median 29% – notably much greater than the national average. But critically, these figures do not include equity partner earnings which were excluded by most participating firms. This is allowed under the reporting rules because partners are considered to be business owners rather than employees. Of the top 50 UK law firms, 15 included some information about partner pay, while only seven provided a combined figure for all partners and employees.

Once partners are included, the average gender pay gap rises sharply to 50.8%. Since nearly 80% of large law firm partners are men, their inclusion in the figures significantly widens the gender pay gap. Among the five magic circle firms, it stretches even further above the average: for example, the mean pay gap at Linklaters surges from 23.2% to 60% while at Clifford Chance it jumps from 20.3% to 66.3%.

The London offices of two large US law firms showed the biggest gaps of all: Latham & Watkins has a mean gender pay gap of 39.1% while the largest median gap – 68.2% – is at Kirkland & Ellis. It is worth noting that the Big Four accounting firms – KPMG, PwC, EY and Deloitte – did publish their gender pay gap figures to include partners.

Alongside their figures, nearly every law firm explained at some length that the gender pay gap is not the same as equal pay: their figures are affected by the much greater number of women in support roles since, on average, women comprise roughly 75% of the lowest-paid quartile in the top 50.

Beyond the myriad sets of figures, one thing is manifestly obvious: the gender pay gap at most UK law firms is much worse than the average UK business at every level. Remedying this disparity will take time and a sustained effort on multiple fronts since the causes are complex and varied. But one element is perhaps easier to achieve thanks to technology: genuine agile working practices. True, many law firms have bent over backwards in recent years to introduce flexible working initiatives which, like their diversity initiatives, they sell hard at every available opportunity. Yet too often in practice these fall short of genuine agile working policies that allow women to sympathetically maintain their careers when they start a family. If they were to pursue the substance behind the rhetoric, law firms would be leading the charge in ensuring women can maintain full progression in their careers while also enjoying motherhood.

This also requires greater gender equality in child care. But for more men to take up flexi-working and use their legal entitlement to parental leave necessitates a cultural shift. In the UK, the impact is still minimal. According to government estimates, only about 2% of 285,000 eligible couples each year take equal leave for childcare.

As more millennials enter the profession, law firms will need to adapt their culture to fit shifting expectations. Millennials are not enamoured of the 24/7 work culture, rather favouring collaboration and sociability. When deciding on where to build their career, they are likely to look for a flexible working culture which promotes a healthy work-life balance. This is both more sustainable in the longer term than the current traditional big-law office culture, and is much more attractive to younger lawyers who seek a career which does not cause any detriment to their personal lives.

This is confirmed by a recent report from Deloitte, which found that the millennial generation prefer people to money, collaborative working and being able to work irregular hours. Young lawyers everywhere want a better work-life balance – not an unreasonable demand since they only have one life. It’s about time that law firms started listening more carefully to what they say, and adjusting their business model to meet the need of this century, not the last one.

Published in New Law Journal – May 2018

The post Gender pay gap deadline highlights need for industry wide culture change appeared first on ExcelloLaw.co.uk.

Read Full Article
  • Show original
  • .
  • Share
  • .
  • Favorite
  • .
  • Email
  • .
  • Add Tags 

Separate tags by commas
To access this feature, please upgrade your account.
Start your free month
Free Preview