According to the Arab Journal; Lisa A. Alfaro joined Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher in 1995 after receiving her JD from Stanford Law School. Now she is partner in charge of the firm’s São Paulo office in Brazil, and she co-chairs the Latin America practice group. She is fluent in Portuguese and Spanish, and she is licensed in California and New York.

But there is one thing Alfaro can’t do: engage in any kind of local law practice in Brazil.

For more information go to the Arab Journal website.

Picture by Sean MacEntee.

According to Legal Week, more paid part-time judicial roles will be made available to allow for flexibility with family commitments and increase the number of women in the judiciary, according to new proposals laid out by Justice Secretary Ken Clarke.

For more information go to the Legal Week website.

Picture by Quinn Dombrowski

As 2011 draws to a close, we take a look at privacy and freedom of expression - areas of the law that were brought into the public consciousness in spectacular fashion this year thanks to social media.

Social media is a phenomenon that exists on the fringes of the law, not because social media is in any way illegal, but because social media is inherently difficult to police. Whilst this is not to suggest that social media is above the law, there are several practical limitations to consider when applying the law to social media websites; most notably, social media is fuelled by the concept of free speech, a basic freedom enshrined, to a certain extent at least, in Section 12 of the Human Rights Act 1998.

Difficult to police
The law pertaining to social media is further complicated by issues of jurisdiction, libel and natural justice, so how exactly does the law govern social media?

It is necessary to highlight two points at this stage. Firstly, social media can refer to numerous technologies and services that enable people to interact with each other through the creation, publication and exchange of user-supplied content. Secondly, social media is governed by various laws, provisions of which are likely to have been framed for purposes and activities entirely different from those relating to social media.

When the law is mentioned in the context of social media, the issue at hand often involves competing interests of privacy and freedom of expression. As noted above, freedom of expression is enshrined in human rights law, but few if any freedoms are without constraint. No person, excepting the monarch or Crown, can enjoy unlimited freedom in a legal context, so it is unsurprising that the deeply entrenched human right of freedom of expression is curtailed by laws pertaining to privacy, which is also mentioned in the Human Rights Act 1998 but is afforded far less attention. In fact, the common law of England and Wales does not recognise any kind of personal right to privacy, so a fleeting reference to the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) 2000 via the 1998 Act is more or less as far as privacy law extends in the UK.

The people who use social media services usually expect their right to freedom of expression to be observed at all times, but others also expect their assumed right of privacy to be observed to the same extent. Unfortunately, reality often fails expectations. Reality also has the capacity to bring conflicting legal aspects to the fore, as in the recent case of Ryan Giggs, whose private life was made public through Twitter, one of the internet's most popular social media technologies.

The Ryan Giggs Affair
Despite the footballer having acquired an injunction to prevent his personal indiscretions being published by the UK media, a pointless endeavour considering his affair with a former glamour model was mentioned in tabloids around the world, the UK's social media decided to out him anyway, as did John Hemming, a Liberal Democrat MP who sought to exercise his parliamentary privilege. The Welsh winger was not happy about his so-called 'superinjunction' being ignored by Twitter, which is now being sued by Mr Giggs, whose injunction had been granted to protect him from harassment (not to preserve privacy). Unfortunately for the footballer, Twitter is a US-based firm and is not, therefore, within the jurisdiction of the UK courts. Issues of liability are also relevant in this case, as the High Court would have to rule whether Twitter was legally responsible for the tweets of its members.

Not one to miss an opportunity, Prime Minister David Cameron vowed to change the law on injunctions in light of the Giggs fiasco, which shared company with events involving Jeremy Clarkson, Jemima Khan, Rio Ferdinand and Andrew Marr. Mr Cameron's brush with social media did not stop at a sound bite, however, as months later he proposed banning suspected rioters from using social media, claiming Facebook and Twitter can be used for "ill", but then so can the telephone.

Various laws have been breached
Aside from issues of privacy, freedom of expression and liability, social media users have been accused of breaching various other laws in their eagerness to exchange edgy content. In the UK, any website that publishes libellous content can be held accountable in court, so it follows that the more edgy posts and tweets of social media users could land social media websites in hot water, assuming jurisdiction can be established. Social media websites must protect themselves at all times by removing potentially libellous comments, which works in theory at least.

Finally, social media is also used by companies for the purpose of brand marketing. Social media is a powerful communicator and the theory asserts that a company has no better chance of marketing a brand effectively than through social media networks. Unfortunately, social media users tend not to follow big brands, so big brands have to be creative in exploiting networks. One method currently used by some firms is to pay bloggers and tweeters to post reviews or comments about their products or services. Although there is no social media law prohibiting this activity, the practice may fall foul of The Consumer Protection from Unfair Trading Regulations 2008 (provision 22 of Schedule 1 - "falsely representing oneself as a consumer").

Social media is the new frontier of the Internet and, as with most frontiers in history; some degree of lawlessness is inevitable.

Picture by Asthma Helper

This month brought sorely needed and warmly welcome news for the graduate recruitment sector as a whole. According to new research published by the Higher Education Careers Services Unit, graduate unemployment has fallen for the first time since the onset of the recession - but it still remains uncomfortably high, with the pace of recovery slow.

HECSU’s annual ‘What Do Graduates Do?’ report, which charts the destinations of full and part-time graduates six months after leaving university, reveals that graduate unemployment has declined from 8.9% to 8.5%.

But what about the Legal profession, traditionally one of the most ‘robust’ sectors and apparently immune from economic woes? Isn’t this a relatively recession-proof perennial harvester of good talent - and what can be expected in 2012?

We asked Steve McNally of Equality Law to give an overview of who is recruiting across the sector in 2012.

“It’s fair to say that in comparative terms, the legal world has held up well as a recruiter of talent post-2008 ‘meltdown’. Certainly, all the usual suspects, from the ‘Magic Circle’ to national networks, regional specialists and single-location firms are recruiting in some shape and form in the coming year. Look at specialist recruitment sites and there are over 1,000 firms nationwide currently offering training contracts to graduates, as well as 200+ Barrister sets offering pupillage. Add to that the large raft of work placement schemes and paralegal positions - and it’s clear that there is a great deal of opportunity on the horizon in 2012.”

“That said, competition for places remains as high as ever, which is why people coming into the legal profession must remember that it’s a many-sided entity; they must choose the path that’s right for them. This sector is populated by an immense variety of firms and barrister sets, each of which can differ quite widely, not just in terms of location and client base, but also working culture and, of course, legal specialism.”

Wider Access & Diversity
For some time there’s been a growing movement in the legal profession to create a more diverse workforce. For 2012, this has led to a large number of diversity projects and access schemes, designed to ensure that law is a possible career for every member of society. Inevitably the main focus has been on finding work experience in law firms and barristers’ chambers for school and undergraduate students. All of the firms and barristers mentioned are actively recruiting graduates in 2012, as well as offering wider access and opportunities through the following schemes:

Sponsors for Educational Opportunity (SEO)
SEO offers high quality mentoring and finds summer internships for outstanding penultimate year undergraduates from ethnic minority groups currently under-represented in the City. Big name firms such as Ashurst, Berwin Leighton Paisner, Eversheds, Herbert Smith, Latham & Watkins, Linklaters, Macfarlanes, Simmons & Simmons, Weil Gotshal & Manges, Ashurt and Winston & Strawn LLP sponsor the scheme, which also covers banks, professional services and technology and programming. The non-profit organisation has an impressive success rate: more than 80% of SEO interns eventually secure a full-time position with a sponsoring firm. Corporate law interns have access to senior partners at all sponsoring firms, can complete multiple placements, receive more than 60 hours of training and will be allocated a personal mentor.

Social Mobility Foundation (SMF)
This ambitiously broad, innovative charity seeks to place high-achieving A-level students from low income backgrounds in placements with major private and public sector institutions. Geoffrey Vos QC, chairman of the group, says the SMF tries to "find ways of bridging the gap between clever students from poor background becoming interested in achieving a high-level career, and actually getting into that high-level career". Sponsors include top law firms such as Clifford Chance, Freshfields Bruckhaus Deringer and Linklaters.

Black Lawyers’ Directory (BLD)
BLD was formed in 2006 to promote diversity within the legal profession and provide a forum for networking. BLD currently has two initiatives for young people within its Legal Gateway Scheme. Law and non-law undergraduates benefit from the Legal Launch Pad programme. The selected students attend various training sessions that include mock interviews and at least one week's work experience at a sponsoring organisation. Sponsors of the Legal Gateway Programme include: A&O, Beachcroft, Berwin Leighton Paisner, Clifford Chance, DLA Piper, Freshfields Bruckhaus Deringer, No5 Chambers, Olswang, Shoosmiths, Slaughter and May and White & Case. The selected students attend various training sessions that include mock interviews and at least one week’s work experience at a sponsoring organisation.

“Opening Doors, Breaking down Barriers.”
In April 2011 a government-initiated, social mobility initiative entitled "Opening Doors, Breaking down Barriers" was announced. Allen & Overy was the first firm to sign up to it, promising to offer internships (or work placement places) to young people from deprived backgrounds.

With all of these schemes in place and the strong number of available vacancies on simplylawjobs.com, it seems that in 2012, the legal sector will be a very exciting place indeed.

Picture by umjanedoan

According to Onpointnews, in a first-of-its-kind unprofessional conduct lawsuit, a woman has sued her former boss at a Michigan funeral home for making an indecent comment about the body of a dead man in front of her.

For more information visit the onpointnews.com website.

Picture by Pavel Tcholakov

“One of the most effective ways to respond to a threatened patent assertion is to be able to assert patents of your own,” says Google’s patent lawyer, Tim Porter.

According to blawgit.com, Porter made that statement in response to a question about why Google was still buying up patents. Despite Google’s recent patent acquisitions, Porter believes “the current system is broken".

For more information go to blawgit.com.

Picture by mattk1979

According to Larry Bodine, with the recent launch of Google+ Pages, Google announced that its social network was finally open for businesses. But is this new tool, which boasts more than 40 million users, ready for lawyers and law firms to start using for marketing and networking? And, perhaps of equal importance, are lawyers and law firms ready for Google+?

For more information visit the blog.larrybodine.com website.

Picture by Fabrizio Van Marciano

This year has seen cloud computing have a major impact in many different areas and the legal sector is just one place where it has the potential to cause a sea change in the way that business is conducted and costs are cut.

One of the biggest reasons for companies involved in the legal sector to make the leap to the cloud is improved security and efficiency for data storage and the streamlining of email systems which can occur without increasing the IT budget.

Cost cutting
By taking these services out of the office and relying on a third party provider to handle them, the time and money usually spent on updating and maintaining systems in-house can be allocated to more fruitful matters. Some estimate that IT experts working in legal environments spend almost three quarters of their time preserving servers and making sure systems run smoothly, but with cloud computing, you can outsource these concerns and costs and allow employees to put their efforts into growing the organisation.

Of course, the sensitivity of the information handled by the legal sector can make firms cagey about handing over the reins of responsibility to an external source and keeping private emails on distant server clusters can understandably cause concerns over security. However, many companies are helping to mitigate fears by taking an incremental approach to cloud adoption, which is something many industry experts support.

Backup
Investing in a cloud platform as a backup for your on-site data and email systems has several obvious benefits. The first is that you can ensure business continuity should something fail internally, because you will be able to switch to harnessing the cloud until the problem is rectified. Secondly, you will have a dedicated backup of vital information stored away from your premises, making disaster recovery all the easier and permanent data loss through hardware faults a thing of the past.

Uninterrupted service from cloud providers has additional benefits for the legal sector. Because most platforms operate in a web based environment, it is possible to gain access to files, emails and programs through any Internet ready device. This makes remote working far simpler to achieve and can greatly increase the flexibility of your practice.

Some cloud experts cite the recession as a driving force behind cloud migration in the legal sector as it has helped supporters to convince those who are sceptical about the confidentiality of using such services to take the leap based on the potential savings. One company made savings of over £700,000 annually as a result of switching to a cloud provider for its email, according to Computer Weekly. Figures like this are difficult to argue against and enterprising legal businesses are paving the way for a wider roll-out of cloud computing services across the UK and the developed world.

Of course, cost cutting should not be the only reason to migrate to the cloud and there is always work going on in order to secure cloud computing against manipulation from malicious influences. Security is never assured even when using on-site technology and data loss can occur when laptops or memory sticks are lost or stolen, indicating that no system is perfect and the cloud is an improvement.

Photo by Kevin Dooley

As reported by Lawyer magazine recently, things are getting tougher for lawyers who have a catalogue of complaints against them thanks to a bid to 'name and shame' them in certain circumstances. What is the new scheme exactly? The Legal Ombudsman will initiate the new system in April 2012, publishing the names of lawyers who have received a series of complaints.

There have been several reactions to this news. It has been reported that the body that oversees the Legal Ombudsman, The Office of Legal Complaints, approves the new move. Indeed, they argue that this is the correct way to behave towards lawyers who have incurred complaints. However, other bodies have expressed a less enthusiastic response to the new initiative. For example, the Law Society and also the Institute of Legal Executives have reportedly expressed concerns as to the likely targets of the move. They are worried that this new process would disproportionately impact sole practitioners. These sole practitioners often work in legal sectors that are believed to produce greater levels of complaints. A classic area to demonstrate this case is of course, family law.

Name and shame
So what triggered the new idea to name and shame lawyers? A consultation was made by the Office of Legal Complaints into how to deal with issues of regulation as a result of the implementation of the Legal Services Act. However, the Bar Council responded to this consultative process with a note of caution. They did not support the notion of full transparency and they reportedly objected to the use of the Legal Ombudsman naming and shaming individual lawyers or law firms.

However, the Bar Council did concede that any formal decisions made should be appropriately published in full. They were quoted in the Lawyer magazine as saying that they supported the policy which was effected by the BSB - that is to say, the gravity of the offices of the individual barrister was taken into account before names were shamed. For instance, a barrister who had a more minor offence, such as the provision of inadequate professional service, should not have their name published. However, more serious misdemeanours, such as those barristers who were found to have been guilty of professional misconduct would merit such publication.

The debate goes on
The chair of the Office of Legal Complaints, Elizabeth Francis, has also joined in the debate. Her argument, as quoted in the press, is that the more transparency, the better 'service value' for those who use the legal profession. There is a balance to be struck, according to Ms Francis. On the one hand, protection is needed for consumers and on the other hand, the legal team should be independent and strong. In addition, the Legal Ombudsman will make public the names of the lawyers and law firms that have been involved in complaints that resulted in a formal decision by him. This publication is to take place every three months.

Photo by umjanedoan

Psychometric testing is favoured by the majority of recruiters in the UK. Up to 65 per cent of employers, in fact, use it according to the latest estimates, but there are suspicions that some law firms continue to overlook the tool as part of the selection process. Why?

Now subject to various rules and regulations, psychometric testing has been around since World War II. The personality, fortitude and mental acumen of soldiers were reviewed for similar reasons as prospective employees are assessed today, with the exception that testing aimed to ensure that lives were not lost unnecessarily. Today, psychometric testing is as common a recruitment tool as the interview.

Psychometric tests can be divided into two main types or categories - personality tests and aptitude tests. The former tends to focus on a candidate's personal interests, while the latter seeks to establish how capable a person is at certain tasks. By assessing personality and aptitude, employers are able to identify possible strengths and weaknesses in candidates that might affect their ability to succeed in a particular role.

Personality tests cover aspects such as enthusiasm, motivation, confidence, integrity, honesty, self-esteem, respect for others, ability to work in a team, acceptance of authority, skills, experience and so on. Aptitude tests evaluate various reasoning skills, especially verbal, numeric and spatial abilities, with the aim of evaluating overall intelligence. It is common for psychometric testing to combine personality and aptitude tests so that more can be learned about potential employees.

Pioneered by Roger Holdsworth and Peter Saville, the men responsible for SHL, psychometric testing is regulated to a degree by the British Psychological Society (BPS), which claims, "psychological tests are used in all walks of life to assess ability, personality and behaviour". BPS maintains a register of accredited tests, many of which include or are based on SHL tests. According to BPS, accredited tests "meet the European Federation of Psychologists Association (EFPA) criteria to be classed as having adequate psychological properties. Tests can be registered if they meet minimum quality standards".

Thus, BPS accredited psychometric testing can be used by employers as a means of understanding the psychology of prospective employees (and perhaps existing workers). Tests normally last 15 minutes or longer and can be carried out on the phone, computer or in person. According to SHL, psychometric testing and related assessment tools can improve business performance by up to 150 per cent, ensuring that the right people occupy the right jobs.

There is little doubt that many law firms use psychometric testing to assess candidates, but could it be argued that psychometric testing is inherently discriminative? The issue has been raised a number of times in recent years, with some legal theorists asking whether tests breach anti-discrimination laws.

There is no definitive answer to the question because few tests are exactly the same. However, it should be noted that current law may require employers to prove that particular skills, qualities or attributes are necessary to the performance of a particular job, so asking certain questions could breach anti-discrimination laws. Indirect questioning in particular can cause problems.

Especially in respect to personality tests, it is common for examiners to ask questions concerning candidates' priorities, beliefs and behavioural responses. Through indirect questioning, it is possible to build a profile that suggests a candidate is, for example, likely to take time off work to look after their children. Psychometric testing might also expose people whose first language is not English, which would discriminate against workers from the EC.

Perhaps the most obvious and compelling reason why some law firms choose not to employ psychometric testing is that 'old boy networking' remains a common method of recruitment in the legal sector. If law firms want to ensure that the best lawyers are hired for the right positions, however, psychometric testing may be necessary, but care should be taken to follow BPS guidelines to avoid discriminating against candidates.