Is this email not displaying correctly? View it in your browser.
9th March 2022
Scotland's news service for lawyers
Today’s Headlines
Latest News

Scot wanted for US securities fraud allowed new extradition hearing by Supreme Court

By Mitchell Skilling

Scot wanted for US securities fraud allowed new extradition hearing by Supreme Court

Lord Reed

The UK Supreme Court has ruled that a Scottish man wanted to stand trial in the USA for securities fraud is entitled to a new extradition hearing after the High Court of Justiciary ruled his extradition would not be incompatible with his ECHR rights.

It had been argued by counsel for the appellant, James Craig, that the UK government had unlawfully failed to bring “forum bar” provisions, inserted into the Extradition Act 2003 in 2013, into force in Scotland. Mr Craig had been accused of posting false information on Twitter in order to lower the value of shares in US-based companies to allow him to purchase and resell those shares to his own advantage.

The appeal was heard by the President of the Supreme Court, Lord Reed, sitting with Lord Lloyd-Jones, Lord Kitchin, Lord Burrows, and Lord Stephens. Aidan O’Neill QC and Fred Mackintosh QC appeared for the appellant and Kenny McBrearty QC and Lesley Irvine, advocate, appeared for the Crown on behalf of the US government. Andrew Webster QC appeared for the second respondent, the Advocate General for Scotland.

Continuing failure

The forum bar provisions were introduced to the 2003 Act by the Crime and Courts Act 2013 following a review of the UK’s extradition arrangements. It was the position of the Scottish Ministers, particularly the Lord Advocate, that parts of the provisions constituted an inappropriate interference with his independence, which led to the UK government not commencing the provisions in Scotland.

In May 2017, the US government made a request for the appellant’s extradition. Following his first court appearance in the UK, he raised proceedings for judicial review of the decision not to commence the forum bar provisions in Scotland so as to be able to mount a defence under them. In 2018, the Lord Ordinary hearing the petition determined that the UK government’s failure to bring the provisions into force in Scotland was unlawful.

No appeal was taken against that decision, however no commencement order was made as a result of it. At an extradition hearing in June 2019, the appellant argued that his extradition was incompatible with article 8 of the ECHR, and that any interference with that right was unlawful by reason of the government’s continuing failure to bring the forum bar into force. The sheriff did not accept this submission and sent the case to the Scottish Ministers for their decision.

The appellant appealed to the High Court of Justiciary, which considered that the sheriff had taken into account any potential prejudice to the applicant from the failure to introduce the provisions in his decision. Nonetheless, it permitted an appeal to the Supreme Court solely on the article 8 issue. The forum bar provisions were later commenced in Scotland on 6 September 2021, however it was accepted that if the sheriff’s decision of July 2019 was valid the provisions would not apply to the appellant, as the existing extradition bar questions had already been decided.

Part of domestic law 

Delivering the sole opinion, Lord Reed said of declaratory orders generally: “The government’s compliance with court orders, including declaratory orders, is one of the core principles of our constitution, and is vital to the mutual trust which underpins the relationship between the government and the courts. The courts’ willingness to forbear from making coercive orders against the government, and to make declaratory orders instead, reflects that trust.”

He continued: “A declaratory order itself has important legal consequences. First, the legal issue which forms the subject matter of the declaration is determined and is res judicata as a result of the order being granted. In addition, a minister who acts in disregard of the law as declared by the courts will normally be acting outside his authority as a minister, and may consequently expose himself to a personal liability for wrongdoing.”

Noting that there was “no dispute” that the appellant’s extradition would interfere with his right to a private life, Lord Reed said: “Although they accepted that the Home Secretary had acted unlawfully in failing to commence the forum bar provisions in Scotland, they did not treat that continuing breach of the law as meaning that the interference with the appellant’s article 8 rights would not be ‘in accordance with the law’. Instead, they treated the unlawfulness as a matter which could be fully taken into account as a factor in the balancing exercise between the public and private interests involved.”

He concluded: “The commencement provision, section 61 of the 2013 Act, was undoubtedly in force and formed part of domestic law. The procedure followed was not in compliance with section 61, as Lord Malcolm had declared. That remained the position following his decision and as the courts below accepted. The procedure was therefore not in compliance with domestic law. It follows that it was not ‘in accordance with the law’ within the meaning of article 8 of the Convention.”

For these reasons, the appeal was allowed. The case was remitted to the High Court of Justiciary as to allow orders to be made for a new extradition hearing before a different sheriff.

Lord Reed added: “At that hearing, it will be open to the appellant to rely on the forum bar provisions (in addition to any other arguments properly available to him), since the effect of this judgment is that the Sheriff has not yet decided the existing extradition bar questions, ie the questions in section 79(1) of the 2003 Act, as those questions stood before their amendment by the commencement order made in September 2021.”

Ukraine: Russian air strike that killed 47 may be ‘war crime’

Ukraine: Russian air strike that killed 47 may be 'war crime'

A Russian air strike that reportedly killed 47 civilians in the Ukrainian city of Chernihiv may constitute a war crime, Amnesty International said following an investigation into the attack.

At approximately 12.15pm on Thursday 3 March, the small public square formed by Chernihiv’s Viacheslava Chornovola and Kruhova streets was hit by multiple bombs, killing civilians and severely damaging nearby buildings.

Based on new interviews and the verification and analysis of video evidence, Amnesty International’s crisis response team has concluded the attack was mostly likely a Russian air strike in which at least eight unguided aerial bombs – known as ‘dumb bombs’ – were used.

Joanne Mariner, Amnesty International’s Crisis Response Director, said: “The air strike that hit the streets of Chernihiv shocks the conscience. This was a merciless, indiscriminate attack on people as they went about their daily business in their homes, streets and shops.

“This shocking attack is one of the deadliest that the people of Ukraine have endured yet. The Prosecutor of the International Criminal Court should investigate this air strike as a war crime. Those responsible for such crimes must be brought to justice, and victims and their families must receive full reparation.”

The Chernihiv Regional Administration reported that 47 people – 38 men and nine women – were killed in the strike. Verified footage of the strike shows eight munitions being dropped in close succession and falling in a line, as is typical in a bombing run.

Amnesty International was not able to identify a legitimate military target at, or close to, the scene of the strike. Satellite imagery from 28 February shows a queue of people outside the building that was impacted by the strike. Based on this imagery and testimony gathered from witnesses, Amnesty International believes the majority of victims were queuing for food when the missiles struck.

When the bombs struck, Alina, a 21-year-old student, was in her home on nearby Ivana Bohuna Street with her family.

She told Amnesty International: “I heard a very, very loud buzzing, and I felt our building shaking. It was as if our flat was inflating… And then after two seconds, I heard the windows get blown out into the courtyard. Our building shook a lot; I thought there would be no walls left.

“When I heard the buzz, I called my grandma into the corridor with me. We laid on the ground and that’s likely what saved us.”

Alina’s parents were in the street when the blast happened, and they survived the attack. She added: “At [a nearby] yellow building, there had been a line for bread, and that’s where they had wanted to go… I don’t remember whether it was my mother or my father, one of them said, ‘No the line is too long, let’s go.’ And so they left. The people who were in that line are no more.”

Yulia Matvienko, a 33-year-old mother-of-three, was at home with her children, also on Ivana Bohuna Street, when the attack happened. 

She suffered a head injury, telling Amnesty International: “I was walking along the corridor and hadn’t even made it into the kitchen when I was suddenly deafened - I didn’t understand what was happening.

“Everything started to suddenly crumble and fall. The children screamed. For several seconds, it was like there was silence and time stood still. Then I dragged my children out from under the rubble. Blood was flowing down me, and I dragged my children out.

“Everything was destroyed, and the door [to their building] was knocked off. Not a single window was left, and some balconies were totally torn off. There is not a scratch on the children. It’s a miracle… [there was] only my blood on them.”

Ms Mariner said: “All states should cooperate with the ICC and the new commission of inquiry established by the UN Human Rights Council to help ensure accountability for grave violations and crimes such as this attack. Victims of this conflict must have justice.”

Analysis: Ukraine’s application to join the EU – realistic?

Analysis: Ukraine’s application to join the EU – realistic?

David Conlan Smyth SC, Anna Bazarchina BL, William Morrin BL and Patrick Fitzgerald BL – members of the EU Bar Association of Ireland – unpick the legal hurdles and steps involved in Ukraine becoming a member state of the European Union.

On 28 February 2022, just four days after being invaded by Russia, Ukraine submitted an official request to join the EU requesting the use of a special fast-track procedure. At an extraordinary session of the European Parliament on 1 March 2022, the President of Ukraine, Volodymyr Zelenskyy confirmed in an emotional plea the request for membership.

The legal issues addressed here are what conditions must Ukraine fulfil for candidate and/or membership status and what procedures apply.

The current legal relationship – EU-Ukraine Association Agreement

Current relations are governed by the EU-Ukraine Association Agreement in force since 1 September 2017.

The decision by the then President Yanukovych’s Government not to ratify the Agreement – which followed about two decades of negotiations between the parties – and instead to commit to further integration with Russia and the Eurasian Economic Union, sparked the “Euromaidan” protests of 2013/2014. The protests led to a change of Government in Kyiv and ultimately, the new Ukrainian Government committed itself to closer relations with the EU.

On its face many of the fundamental issues of principle that underpin EU membership have already been addressed in the Agreement.

The Agreement promotes deeper and stronger political and economic links between the parties and recognises that “Ukraine as a European country shares a common history and common values with the Member States of the European Union (EU) and is committed to promoting those values”.

It counts amongst its objectives the need to “promote, preserve and strengthen peace and stability in the regional and international dimensions” in accordance with inter alia the principles contained in the United Nations Charter. It also lays down the aim of establishing “conditions for enhanced economic and trade relations leading towards Ukraine’s gradual integration in the EU Internal Market” through for example the EU-Ukraine Deep and Comprehensive Free Trade Area (DCFTA).

Becoming a candidate for EU membership

Full membership is out of the question at present for Ukraine.

The process is complex and requires adherence to the Copenhagen criteria discussed below and the adoption of the acquis communautaire, the body of binding EU law. That will take years. Notably the European Commission has dismissed any idea that President von der Leyen’s “one of us” remark meant that Ukraine could avoid going through the hoops faced by European States seeking to join the EU. In the case of Spain and Portugal the negotiation process alone took six years before their accession in 1986. Poland’s application for membership was made in April 1994 but it took a full ten years before its accession in May 2004.

Whilst the Association Agreement with Ukraine can be regarded as a first step to full EU membership, the crucial and urgent matter for Ukraine at present is to acquire candidate status whether potential or full. Full candidate status can be granted to a European State which has been approved to enter accession negotiations for the purposes of joining the EU as a Member State. Whilst full membership itself only results from a slow and complex process, becoming a candidate country is not encumbered by any firm Treaty rules. The procedure rather involves the European Council (comprised of the heads of Government and where appropriate heads of State of the Member States) deciding to grant candidate status following a recommendation of the European Commission. The hard work actually begins afterwards when accession negotiations begin.

Ukraine has significant support for candidate status. Eight central/eastern EU Member States co-authored a letter some days ago supporting Ukraine’s application for candidate status saying Ukraine “deserves the perspective of EU accession”. Three further Member States have since supported this step. There is no obvious legal difficulty preventing the granting of candidate status (or even more readily potential candidate status) to Ukraine at this point so long as the Member States agree and the Commission recommends such a step. Albania was granted candidate status some five years after its application made in 2009 yet Montenegro achieved candidate status in just two years. Whilst it would be unprecedented to acquire candidate status immediately, there is no obvious legal bar to Ukraine being granted potential candidate status given the current extraordinary circumstances.

Full candidate status could also be considered at this point with a much longer accession negotiation period but that might be more difficult to achieve as a matter of realpolitik.

Becoming an EU member state

Article 49 of the Treaty on European Union (TEU) provides that any European State may apply for membership if it respects the democratic values of the EU and is committed to promoting them. These fundamental EU values include respect for human dignity, democracy, rule of law and human rights, as well as the protection of minorities.

During the protracted accession negotiations, candidate countries must demonstrate adherence to the ‘Copenhagen criteria’ requiring political stability, democracy, rule of law, a functioning market economy and the administrative capacity to assume the obligations of membership.

Procedurally an application for EU membership is addressed to the Council (representing the Governments of the Member States) which decides on the negotiation framework. The European Parliament and national parliaments are notified of the application for membership. Negotiations regarding matters as diverse as the internal market, the green agenda and external relations then ensue following which the Commission gives its opinion on the application to the Council which – having received the consent of the majority of the component members of the European Parliament – decides on the application unanimously. All of this is time-consuming and unfortunately has not necessarily achieved a lasting adherence to the Copenhagen criteria in certain Member States following accession.

Finalising accession

The final stage of the process is accession to the EU by the candidate country which is achieved through an accession treaty which provides for the terms and conditions of the applicant State’s membership including the crucial membership date. The accession treaty does not enter into force until it is approved by the EU Council, the European Commission and the EU Parliament, as well as being signed and ratified by the applicant State and by every Member State.

What is realistic and what is not

The reality is that joining the EU as a full member remains a distant prospect for Ukraine and would take many years. There is no fast-track process. However the grant of candidate status or at the very least potential candidate status is clearly achievable now having regard to the flexibility in this regard both in terms of procedure and criteria as a matter of EU law.

Granting immediate candidate or potential candidate status to Ukraine at this point would be a logical step forward from the Association Agreement. It would signal support for a beleaguered democratic nation and express the solidarity of its European partners who support the rule of law, freedom and respect for human rights. No legal reason presents as to why this cannot happen.

Iain Leslie

The Scotsman has published an obituary of solicitor Iain Leslie, who passed away on January 21 in Edinburgh, aged 59.

“Rugby played a huge part in the life of Iain Leslie, who in turn played a huge part in the life of his beloved club, Watsonians, rendering exceptional service to it in a variety of roles over several decades. He was in effect ‘Mr Watsonian’, a totally committed enthusiast who initially played for the club with distinction as a redoubtable prop forward and after hanging up his boots went from pitch to committee room to dedicate himself to advancing the interests of the Myreside outfit. The epitome of the ideal club man, there was virtually no area that did not benefit from his input.”

Read the full obituary here

Sturgeon offers apology to people accused of witchcraft

Sturgeon offers apology to people accused of witchcraft

Nicola Sturgeon

First Minister Nicola Sturgeon has offered a formal apology to people accused of witchcraft between the 16th and 18th centuries.

She told MSPs at Holyrood that it could legislate to pardon those who were convicted and in many cases executed.

Some 4,000 Scots, most of them women, fell foul of the Witchcraft Act between 1563 and 1736.

The move follows a campaign by Witches of Scotland to obtain an apology from the Scottish government.

Ms Sturgeon said those accused “were not witches, they were people and they were overwhelmingly women”.

She said: “At a time when women were not even allowed to speak as witnesses in a courtroom, they were accused and killed because they were poor, different, vulnerable or in many cases just because they were women.

“It was injustice on a colossal scale, driven at least in part by misogyny in its most literal sense, hatred of women.

“Today on International Women’s Day, as first minister on behalf of the Scottish government, I am choosing to acknowledge that egregious historic injustice and extend a formal posthumous apology to all of those accused, convicted, vilified or executed under the Witchcraft Act of 1563.”

Partner promotions at Jones Whyte

Partner promotions at Jones Whyte

Pictured: Nick Hay (left) and Ross Anderson

Jones Whyte’s Nick Hay and Ross Anderson have both been promoted to partner.

Mr Hay started his traineeship with Jones Whyte in 2014, shortly after the firm’s inception. Since qualifying in 2016 he has developed a wealth of knowledge and expertise in dealing with all types of residential and commercial conveyancing.

Mr Anderson joined Jones Whyte in April 2021 following the administration of McClure Solicitors. He has considerable knowledge of the law of trusts and recently qualified as a solicitor in England and Wales.

Ross Jones, joint managing partner, said: “We are extremely pleased to announce these promotions today. It is hugely rewarding and incredibly important to see our team continuing to develop and progress. As a relatively young firm, we place great emphasis on giving our team’s real accountability along with continued training and development, equipping us to succeed and win for our clients.”

He added: “I, and everyone at Jones Whyte, look forward to working closely with both Nick & Ross in their new roles as we look to build on recent successes & continue to grow and develop the firm.”

Clyde & Co’s belated Burns Supper a great success

Clyde & Co's belated Burns Supper a great success

Clyde & Co welcomed more than 150 clients and colleagues to its annual Burns Supper on 3 March at the Merchant Taylors Hall in London.

Clyde & Co has held an annual Burns Supper since 2001. After hosting an online Burns Supper last year, the event returned to being held in person albeit slightly later in the calendar than is traditional due to the pandemic.

The event saw the firm entertain clients from across its practice groups with much haggis eating, whisky drinking as well as the traditional toasts and musical performances. Partner Andrew Constable compered the evening as master of ceremonies throughout; managing partner for Scotland, Vikki Melville, addressed the haggis with great vigour, while a fantastic immortal memory to celebrate the enduring spirit of Burns was delivered by Gordon Keyden.

Senior associates Kim McLeod and David Hutchison stepped up for the traditional battle of the sexes with their toast to the laddies and reply. Musical talent was also provided by partner David Leckie on bagpipes, with Burns songs sung by legal director Alison Tyler.

One client said that it “was an exceptional event with great hospitality, entertainment and a warmth of company that has been really missed over the last couple of years”.

Ms Melville said: “This celebration of the life and works of Robert Burns continues to be one of the most eagerly anticipated events in our calendar. The evening was a fantastic opportunity to re-connect in-person with our clients and colleagues even at what is an unconventional time of the year.”

Aberdeen Law Project launches foodbank partnership

Aberdeen Law Project launches foodbank partnership

The Aberdeen Law Project has launched the ALP Foodbank Partnership – an initiative created to help ensure unused food does not go to waste.

The scheme was launched with the support of CFINE (Community Food Initiatives North East) and Aberdeen South Foodbank and connects those living in student accommodation with foodbanks to ensure that food and other items that would otherwise go to waste can be used to help local communities.

ALP launched the scheme in response to local demand and appeals for donations.

Helena Siebenrock, student director and founder of the ALP Foodbank Partnership, said: “As students ourselves, we know that in the rush of moving out of student accommodation, a lot of usable items can end up in the landfill.

“We are delighted to be able to provide a link between foodbanks and student accommodation to help stop that happening and to ensure unused food items do not go to waste. I am very excited about this new initiative, as it is unlike anything we have seen before in Aberdeen.”

Nicky McKay, pantry development worker at CFINE, said: “The ALP Foodbank Partnership is an invaluable scheme that ensures no left over, in-date tinned and non-perishable goods go to waste after students move away from their university halls. CFINE are delighted to be a part of the scheme and thank ALP for their continued support.” 

US: Senate passes anti-lynching bill

US: Senate passes anti-lynching bill

The Senate has unanimously passed a bill to make lynching a federal hate crime after more than a century of attempts to do so.

The Emmett Till Antilynching Act provides that the crime will be punishable by up to 30 years in prison.

Some 4,400 African Americans were lynched in the US between the end of Reconstruction, in the 1870s, and the years following the Second World War. Postcards and souvenirs of lynchings were sometimes sold.

The bill is named after Emmett Till, a 14-year-old boy from Chicago who had been visiting relatives in Mississippi when he was accused of whistling at a white woman, Carolyn Bryant, in a shop. Her husband, Roy Bryant along with his half-brother JW Milam, kidnapped the boy and tortured and murdered him before dumping his body in the Tallahatchie River in August 1955.

They were tried and acquitted by an all-white jury before they confessed. They were protected from a second prosecution by double jeopardy rules.

Emmet’s mother insisted on an open casket at his funeral to allow mourners to see the full extent of his horrific injuries. The incident sparked a new phase in the civil rights movement.

Bobby Rush, the Illinois Democrat who introduced the measure in the House, said: “Despite more than 200 attempts to outlaw this heinous form of racial terror at the federal level, it has never before been done. Today, we corrected that historic injustice. Next stop: [Joe Biden’s] desk.”

New Jersey Democrat Cory Booker, Senate co-sponsor with Tim Scott of South Carolina, a Republican, said: “The time is past due to reckon with this dark chapter in our history and I’m proud of the bipartisan support to pass this important piece of legislation.”

Our Legal Heritage: The murder of Emmett Till

As the US passes a bill named for a young boy whose brutal racist murder shocked America and the wider world, SLN takes at look at the the case and the injustice that followed.

On August 28, 1955, 14-year-old Emmett Till, an African American boy from Chicago, was tortured and murdered by two white men for allegedly flirting with a white woman four days earlier.

On August 24, Emmett, who was visiting family in Money, Mississippi, drove with a group of them to Bryant’s Grocery & Meat Market. Emmett entered the store with one of the other boys, who made his purchase and left. Emmett was left alone with Carolyn Bryant, the white woman who was working at the counter. She later claimed in court that Emmett put his hand on hers and asked “How about a date, baby?” She also accused him of grabbing her waist and saying “You needn’t be afraid of me, baby I’ve [slept] with white women before.” The boy’s cousin, Simeon Wright, however, cast doubt on the account. Writing about it decades later, he said that, having entered the store less than a minute after his cousin, he saw nothing that would support Bryant’s account. He said that Emmett “paid for his items and we left the store together”.

There is general agreement that after they left, and as Bryant was leaving the store and heading towards her car to retrieve a gun – as she testified – Emmett whistled at her. His cousin said it was “a loud wolf whistle, a big city ‘whee wheeeee!’” His cousins knew they were in danger and the group rushed to the car and left Money.

The following day, the woman’s husband, Roy Bryant, found out about the incident. On August 27, he made plans with his half-brother, John W. Milam, to kidnap Emmett and “teach him a lesson”. They ultimately found him at the home of “Preacher” Moses Wright. They threatened to kill the family if they told anyone they had come to take Emmett.

The exact details of what followed are unknown. Bryant and Milam said they had initially intended to “just whip him…and scare some sense into him”. Based on Emmett’s recovered body it is clear, however, that he was tortured and his body dumped in the Tallahatchie River.

A boy named Robert Hodges discovered Emmett’s body three days later, eight miles downstream. Moses Wright identified the body as Emmett’s.

Our Legal Heritage: The murder of Emmett Till

Mamie Till at Emmett's funeral

Later, at the Illinois Central Station in Chicago, a crowd gathered to see five men lift a paper-wrapped bundle containing Emmett’s body and place it in waiting hearse. His mother, Mamie Till, wailed: “Oh, God. Oh, God. My only boy.” She insisted his body be displayed in an open casket at his funeral on September 2 in Chicago – which some 50,000 people attended.

His mother told reporters: “Unless an example is made of the lynchers of Emmett, it won’t be safe for a Negro to walk the streets anywhere in America.”

Bryant and Milam were arrested within a day of Emmett’s disappearance. They admitted to taking him but claimed they had released him in Money.

Before the murder trial, Mississippi Governor Hugh White telegrammed District Attorney Gerald Chatham “urging vigorous prosecution of the case”. Chatham said: “Murder is murder whether it is black or white, and we are handling this case like all parties are white.”

Local newspaper, the Greenwood Commonwealth stated in an editorial: “The citizens of this area are determined that the guilty parties shall be punished to the full extent of the law.”

Yet opposition from northern opponents of segregation irritated Mississippians and led them to support Bryant and Milam. All five lawyers in the town of Sumner, where the trial was to be held, agreed to defend the men. No black people were eligible to serve on the jury.

Moses Wright, first witness for the state, identified the men as those who had come to his home and taken Emmett.

Carolyn Bryant alleged that Emmett had behaved inappropriately towards her in the shop and also claimed he used an “unprintable word”. Judge Curtis Swango ruled her testimony inadmissible, though it had been widely disseminated before the trial and would have been in the minds of the jurors.

Sheriff H. C. Strider appeared for the defence. He claimed the body found was not Emmett’s on the basis that its state of decomposition implied it had been there for “ten to fifteen days”. No one has ever been convinced of this suggestion.

Closing arguments began following testimony from character witnesses for the defence.

District Attorney Chatham said: “They murdered that boy, and to hide that dastardly, cowardly act, they tied barbed wire to his neck and to a heavy gin fan and dumped him into the river for the turtles and the fish.”

He added that they “were dripping with the blood of Emmett Till”.

The defence told jurors: “Every last Anglo-Saxon one of you has the courage to set these men free.”

Historian Hugh Whitaker says that Sheriff-elect Dogan told jurors to purposely wait a while before coming out with their verdict to make “it look good”. They returned a verdict of not guilty.

Six weeks later, a Leflore County grand jury refused to indict the men on kidnapping charges, and both were released from custody.

They confessed to the murder months later in a paid interview with Look magazine but were protected from prosecution under double jeopardy laws.

The outcome of the case incensed the black community. Several cities held protest rallies and there were calls for federal legislation to be introduced to protect the civil rights of black Americans. It marked the true beginning of the civil right movement in the south.

The result of the case also emboldened racists. Two months after the verdict a white man, Elmer Kimbell, murdered a black attendant at a petrol station. He walked free from the same Sumner courtroom in which Bryant and Milam, upon their acquittal, had lit cigars and kissed their wives in celebration.

Quote of the day

If you can’t speak out against this kind of thing, a crime that’s so unjust,
Your eyes are filled with dead men’s dirt, your mind is filled with dust.

Bob Dylan ‘The Death Of Emmett Till’

And finally… snow joke

A Spanish TV station has apologised after a quiz show asked contestants to guess the street value of a gram of cocaine.

Atrapame Se Podes, or Catch Me if You Can, a popular show in Galicia, features topical questions and a prize pot of €25,000.

It asked contestants on Monday how much they thought a gram of the drug was worth: €6 or €60. They guessed correctly.

The TVG channel said: “It wasn’t the intention of the programme to disparage the serious problem of drug addiction.”

Pitching your business to the Dragons  

Do you know your numbers?

Looking at the questions the Dragons fire at applicants in the hit TV show Dragons Den, it’s clear that whatever your ambition, whatever your business project, you need to understand the mechanics of your business before anything else - whether you want investment or simply want your business to succeed. Time and again the same questions are asked by the Dragons to those looking for investment. And time and again entrepreneurs and business owners come up short when it comes to the numbers.  

It may or may not surprise you to know that 70% of businesses don’t know their key numbers – P&L, KPIs, cashflow projections, fees in, fees out, gross profit, net profit, wage bill, etc. We also know that many law firms tend to work their numbers out manually on spreadsheets. Incredible really when there are so many tools available to make that part of a lawyer’s life a hell of a lot easier. And would make your pitch to Peter and Deborah a little less tense!

Cringe!  

We’ve all been there. We’ve all sat in front of the telly with bated breath waiting to hear if the person under the spotlight can confidently talk about (DUN, DUN DUN) THE NUMBERS!! You’ve probably cringed as much as we have when you hear applicants stumble and struggle over the financials of their business.   

Picture yourself in a room with the Dragons. Would you be able to hold your own, get the numbers right and get a much firmer footing to secure an investment in your law firm? 

Now picture yourself in a room with your partners.

Pitfalls  

Let’s start by looking at all the pitfalls of not knowing your law firms’ numbers… 

Managing finances can be a challenge. Not having the experience or the time to dedicate to your firms’ finances means that many law firm owners don’t feel in control of them.  

To be blunt, not knowing your firms’ numbers could result in the failure of your business. Finance is really the overall health of your law firm – is your law firm getting its five a day or is there a giant heart attack coming!  

Benefits  

Now, let’s look at all the benefits of having support to manage and know your numbers inside and out… 

Cashroom clients receive many benefits using their Management Accounts service. Budgets, cashflow projections and monthly management accounts are crucial to knowing where you are and predicting where you are going. 

Tracking profit and loss

One of the fundamentals for any business owner - are you making money from your labour? There are of course businesses that exist as not for profit but for most business owners the whole point of the firm is to make a living. Do you know whether you are profitable on a month-to-month basis? This is not merely as simple as having money in the bank to pay the bills, employee wages, and the myriad other costs of business and your system generated reports alone may not be enough for you to determine how profitable the business is. A good practice management system, like Denovo’s CaseLoad, allied with professional assistance from a Cashroom accountant can help you to track profitability on a monthly basis, which neatly leads to… 

Identifying business trends  

Do this regularly! You will never have a proper handle on your finances if you are only looking at them once a year for compliance purposes. Your business might not be at the stage of needing a full-time experience finance professional, but you can set up a monthly meeting with Cashroom’s Management Accounts team to give you that value add and experienced insight into your finances. Do you know how well each work type is doing? Do you have any seasonality within your business? Do you know if your business is growing, treading water, or contracting? Regular and appropriate management information can assist you with understanding your business in additional detail. 

Performance Management  

You can use regular financial analysis and data to view how each individual at your firm is contributing to the success (or otherwise) of your business.

You can create financial targets for billing and utilisation amongst many meaningful metrics and targets to performance manage your employees. If you are trying to grow your business, visible and comprehensible management information will let you know when it is time to invest your hard-earned cash into people, processes or workstreams.  

Future planning  

There will always be business issues that need to be addressed today, but when it comes to your finances, you also need to be able to plan. Will there be a shortage of cash coming down the track from poor credit control, a significant VAT or PAYE liability, an income or corporate tax liability, or from a downturn in business. If you are not planning financially then it is easy to run into difficulty very quickly. The most successful firms always have an eye on the future.  

Seeking investment

Amongst many things businesses have become more aware of from the Covid-19 pandemic, one key issue has been access to finance. Whether that has been freely available government support or additional support from funding providers there is generally a need to demonstrate solid underlying financial performance to even agree a bank overdraft. If the firm is looking for external investment or loan funding to expand or carry out particular projects, it is vital to have up to date financial information. No Dragon would be remotely interested in investing in a business that was unable to demonstrate its current financial performance, let alone the expectations for the future. If you do nothing else, please consider these top tips and ask yourself if you’re happy that you have the necessary financial information to run your firm successfully.   

If you want to learn more about Denovo’s integration with Cashroom and get support to know your numbers inside and out from the most intelligent legal software and service providers in the country, visit denovobi.com/Cashroomintegration , email info@denovobi.com or call us on 0141 331 5290. 

Choosing your Legal Software provider – It’s all about Trust

Choosing your Legal Software provider – It’s all about Trust

There are some key differences between lawyers and other professionals. But, like other professionals, you worry about making the right decision when considering new technology, and just like any other kind of professional, you trust the advice and recommendations of people who know your issues best.

We understand that it is our job is to listen and to learn and then show you that we understand how you practice and the process problems that you face before we would ever ask you for a decision on our software. But we don’t just do that at the point of sale; we keep listening. Our desire to keep improving means we must keep listening. Your feedback on how the system is working for you and what we can do to improve it is fundamental to our business.

Here’s just some of the ways we build Trust.

Price

Some would say that if your pricing isn’t transparent, lawyers (just like everyone else) will get fed up trying to figure out if the product is value for money. You’ll see comments online telling businesses like ours to display our price prominently online – we don’t. We can’t!

You see the truth is, we’re just like you. It’s like being instructed by a client. Ideal scenario would be to tell your client exactly how much your services cost straight off the bat. However, throughout initial consultancy and the onboarding process things change, new info comes to light and only then can we give a realistic price. The benefit we have is once we’ve navigated those hurdles it becomes simple. We can guarantee we have the most competitive pricing model in Scotland. Suitable for firms of all sizes, whether you’re starting out, introducing software for the first time, or looking to change.

Proving it works

Our job is to show you that the software not only works but helps – massively! We’ll point you to case studies and put you in touch with firms using our software.

We need to demonstrate that we understand your problem. Tell us what you need and then let us customise our demonstration for your firm to show you the product in action.

Approaching your challenges holistically

You want the new software to predictably fit into your workflows, and not raise new concerns. You are also worried that it will require a process overhaul and lengthy training before you can reap the benefits. If it requires that you change the way that you do business, then you’re less likely to try and properly buy into using the new platform. The impact on your practice needs to be predictable and you should not have to contend with major disruption to experience the benefits.

Ease of use

You do complicated work and, in many cases, have complicated demands. That doesn’t mean you want complicated software. Lawyers are accused of being averse to trying new tech. However, that’s not a description of lawyers, that’s a description of people! To succeed, technologies in any sector need to be better than the existing approach by a considerable margin. So, to help you understand the benefits, we make our software platform, CaseLoad, familiar and simple to use. If you can’t figure it out within 10 minutes (without any instruction manuals) then it’s too complicated.

Keeping our solutions in search of problems

We know most lawyers are less interested in being “cool” and more interested in being productive, so we bring you solutions rather than the other way around. Of course, you’re interested in new technology that solves problems you encounter every day in legal practice: writing, billing, collecting, client relationship management, etc. All we ask is you show us what you currently do to get through the day. We then get you there - faster.

Let’s get you home on time

I can guess where you don’t want to be at 7pm! Just like everyone else, you don’t want to be in the office! So, while working on our software we’re acutely aware that it must solve challenges in your everyday practice. We know you often have to work late…it’s because you’re busy. If we can help you save time on legal work and help you leave at 5:30pm instead of 7pm you might just buy our product.

Permanency

There has been a burst of activity in the legal software market of late, and lawyers tend to wonder whether the extraordinary growth a company like Denovo has had is sustainable. It is a serious question. If you do like our product and company, will it have longevity? This is one of the many reasons that lawyers return again and again to the big name companies, despite that they may often be lagging in terms of innovation or having the ability to customise their software for Scottish firms. We want you to trust us with your problems, so we’ll tell you candidly about our past and future.

If you think this approach would work for you call us on 0141 331 5290, denovobi.com or if you would prefer to write to us our email is info@denovobi.com.

Your trusted partner for title indemnities

Stewart Title Limited is dedicated to ensuring that your property transactions proceed speedily and with peace of mind towards completion through the use of our policies.

We can provide the following:

Online Ordering

Our Stewart Solution application enables you to get a quote for more than 150 title risks in three easy steps. Our technology can reduce time, costs and the risk of errors, streamlining your practice.

Bespoke Solutions

Our knowledgeable Underwriting Team is available for more complex matters or where you need to discuss your transaction.

Dedicated Service

We approach working with our clients as a partnership – responding quickly to your needs, understanding the problems you face and providing prompt solutions to help resolve potential issues.

Contact us to discuss your transaction. We would be pleased to assist you.

Elizabeth Birrell

07940513681

elizabeth.birrell@stewart.com

www.stewartsolution.com

Global Language Services Ltd

Global Language Services Ltd

Technology in the 21st Century is providing us with the means to communicate our thoughts and ideas across the planet in a way that would have been unthinkable, even 10 years ago.

However good the technology is, it cannot pick up the subtleties of a language, the culture that underpins it, or even the humour that oils many of our conversations.

For this reason there has always been a need for skilled interpreters and translators and probably always will. That’s where Global Language Services Ltd can help you.

Not only do we have the language service talent that you are likely to need, we also have a track record that spans Government, health, justice, commercial and private sector contracts.

So, whatever you want to achieve in a different language, we’re on your side from the word ‘go’.

We go out of our way to help with any translation and interpreting requirements and you can test that simply by picking up the phone and getting in touch. Calls are answered by trained operators with no call centres – just real people determined to help you achieve your language service requirements as quickly as possible.

If you’ve been searching for Professional Translation or reliable Interpreting Services at competitive prices, we like to think that Global will be your long-term partner after your first project with us.

With offices in Glasgow, Edinburgh, Inverness and Aberdeen we are committed to finding local interpreters and translators wherever possible. Our reach, however, goes much further than Scotland and we are happy to take translation projects from across the world.

Call Today on 0141 429 3429 to discuss your Project or email mail@globallanguageservices.co.uk

Please note that Scottish Legal News accepts no responsibility for viruses. It's your responsibility to scan attachments.

Scottish Legal News strives to be accurate. If you see anything in our publication which is misleading or wrong, please contact us.

You can find the most up-to-date information about how to contact Scottish Legal News on our website.

© Scottish Legal News Ltd 2025
You are receiving this email because you are subscribed to Scottish Legal News.