This is a place where laws already exist but do not necessarily apply to the new technological world. If the rule of law is to catch up with social media, its enforcers must be willing to explore unfamiliar territory.

Without doubt the biggest problem facing those who wish to enforce the law is jurisdiction. The internet is home to more than two billion users – the figure is likely to be much higher counting families, children and students etc, who share accounts. Geographically, internet users come from everywhere. Internet penetration – by percentage of population – is highest in the United States (78.3%), followed by Oceania (60.1%) and Europe (58.3%).

The number of internet users by continent or region, however, is highest in Asia, where some 922 million people, just 23.8% of the local population, have access to the internet. This figure represents 44% of the global share of internet users, ahead of Europe (22.7%), North America (13%), Central/South America and the Caribbean (10.3%), Africa (5.7%), the Middle East (3.3%) and Oceania (1%). Thus, the region with the second highest internet penetration rate has the smallest share of global internet users.
Legal systems vary worldwide.

The problem with the ‘worldwide’ nature of the web is that all of these regions are subject to different laws. This would not in itself be a major problem were it not for social media interaction on a global scale. People on the internet tend to mingle, so cultures, content and legal systems very often clash. The issue was highlighted in 2006 when La Ligue Contre Le Racisme et l’antisémitisme (LICRA) sued Yahoo! and Yahoo! France for allowing French users to access Nazi material. Ordered to remove the content by the French court, Yahoo! was afforded personal jurisdiction by the US Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. In effect, this meant that Yahoo! was not duty-bound to remove the content under US law; the French Court had no jurisdiction.

The LICRA case did not intend to permit social media users to flout the rule of law online; on the contrary, users remain subject to the laws of the land but perhaps only their land. The internet is global but most laws are local. The issue of jurisdiction in social media lawsuits has yet to be fully explored, however and it is entirely possible that cases will arise in coming years that shape the argument in one direction or another, perhaps risking the globalisation of social media. In the meantime, individuals and companies will continue to struggle to uphold certain laws against users who are subject to completely different legal systems.

Another legal implication of the social media revolution is defamation, particularly libel, but also slander on certain multimedia-based social networking sites. Defamation cases involving websites are nothing new, but lawsuits involving social media are on the rise. According to industry experts, online libel cases in the UK doubled between 2010 and 2011, when a total of 86 cases progressed to court. The situation is likely to worsen as social media usage increases over the coming years.

The main problem with libel and social media, from a company’s perspective at least, is that enforcement can do more harm than good. Social media communities expect a certain freedom online, whether justified or not. Bringing claims against libellous social media users can be the virtual equivalent of shooting oneself in the foot. There is often no good reason to pursue libel action against social media users. The most appropriate and effective course of action is usually to retort in some form or another (the more creative the better). At the very least, a company ought to consider refuting comments via a press release before considering legal action but ignoring defamation or denouncing it in good humour is almost always the best policy.

The situation is somewhat different for defamed individuals. In one particularly remarkable case, Orlando Figes, an esteemed professor in Russian history, was exposed for committing a quite unremarkable offence. He had dabbled in a spot of ‘astroturfing’.

Astroturfing in this context refers to posting fake comments or reviews about a person, product or place etc, usually with the intention of increasing or destroying its reputation. Figes had defamed historical works published by his rivals by posting spurious reviews on Amazon. Although the professor did so anonymously, Rachel Polonsky, one of the defamed individuals targeted by Figes, tracked down the miscreant historian and demanded justice.

After threatening Polonsky with legal action – libel, ironically – Figes came clean, admitting that he had criticised rivals’ work in order to promote his own. Astroturfing, however, was not vanquished by Figes’ confession. Libel remains a serious threat to all individuals and businesses online and social media is the perfect breeding ground for internet users who defame others for whatever reason.

Jurisdiction and defamation are just two of the legal issues threatening the development of social media. Copyright infringement is another serious concern, as it has been online for more than a decade. As with libel and slander, copyright is at the mercy of jurisdiction. If two conflicting legal systems go head to head, the tangible will almost certainly triumph over the virtual. Regional jurisdiction presides for the time being. However, many sites such as Facebook and Twitter employ strict terms and agreements that aim to impose rules pertaining to copyright and defamation, so remedial or punitive measures are often available at the source.

In summary, the social media revolution is still in its infancy. As with all infants, mistakes are made on a frequent basis. The task of individuals and companies is to learn from those mistakes, anticipate others and prepare for the odd tantrum. Social media is growing up, but can the rule of law catch up?

Photo by HonestReporting.com

Bookmark It

Related posts:

1. Media Law Jobs Guide

Read the full article on the Business Weekly website.

Photo by MarkoPako

Bookmark It

No related posts.

Paris-based corporate and investment bank Societe Generale (Soc Gen) has announced the appointment of 12 international law firms to its new global panel.

After the conclusion of the panel review, the majority of firms that have been appointed by the French bank are firms that have advised the bank in the past, such as the UK law firm, Clifford Chance.

Other UK law firms included in Soc Gen’s new panel are Simmons & Simmons, Hogan Lovells and Norton Rose.

Allen & Overy and Herbert Smith have also been appointed, as have US law firms Jones Day, Shearman & Shearman and Paul Hastings Janofsky & Walker.

International law firm Baker & McKenzie, the French-based firm Gide Loyrette Nouel and the legal arm of PriceWaterhouseCoopers (PwC) have also been announced as members of the panel.

A Soc Gen spokesperson said in a statement: “These firms have been chosen for their global reach and their international expertise, and are ideally suited to cover the group’s needs worldwide.

“A panel of local law firms will be added to this international panel in all the countries where the group is present.”

Source: Legal Week

Photo: Mohamed Yahya

Bookmark It

Related posts:

1. Legal Jobs – London

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

Bookmark It

Related posts:

1. Legal Jobs – London
2. Legal Jobs – Wales
3. Law Graduate Jobs – Getting Your First Job

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.

Bookmark It

No related posts.

The country’s most senior court is being put under severe strain by a surge in disputed matters that are taking more than two years to pass from the appellate court to the Supreme Court.

One litigator said he was “gobsmacked” to learn that hearings were being ­scheduled for 2012 and 2013 for cases that were ruled on by the Court of Appeal (CoA) in 2010.

Read the full article on The Lawyer website.

Bookmark It

No related posts.

For the lucky ones who get jobs with the top firms, the life of a rookie lawyer is a charmed one.

Not only do the likes of Allen & Overy – where Prince Harry’s ex, Chelsy Davy, began work as a trainee solicitor earlier this month – cover their graduate recruits’ hefty law school fees, but they pay them around £40,000 while they complete on-the-job “training contracts”.

At which point, as fully fledged lawyers, their salaries rocket to £60,000-plus.

Read the full article on the Guardian website.

Bookmark It

No related posts.

“I am in my fourth seat at a magic circle firm. I have the option to qualify into one of the departments that I have completed a seat in, but my interest has long been in IP/IT law.

I have previous industry experience of the IT sector, and in future I think I would enjoy going in-house in this area.

“Should I leave the firm I’m at and try to qualify into this area at a different firm, or would this be a bad idea? Should I just stick with what I have, and maybe try to move in a few years?”

Read the full article on the Legal Week website.

Bookmark It

No related posts.

We’ve collected together 10 of the best online legal resources. Each site is a wealth of easy-to-access information from those that specialise in media law or European Law, to those that have huge databases of court reports, and law and legislation. If you’re not already using these sites, you will be soon.

British and Irish Legal Information Institute: A great website for finding British and Irish case law and legislation, as well as European Union case law and Law Commission reports. 

5rb: A leading set of media and entertainment barristers, their website is a great resource for those wishing to specialise in media and entertainment law.

The Incorporated Council of Law Reporting for England and Wales: With around 75,000 case reports and free case summaries, as well as applications for Supreme Court appeals.

Eur-Lex: EUR-Lex provides free access to European Union law and other documents including legislation in force, preparatory acts, case-law, parliamentary questions, summaries of EU Legislation, The ABC of European Union law, and legislative drafting.

Google Books: Access to thousands of free law books.

Westlaw: Case law, legislation, expert analysis, journals, business information and news.

LexisLibrary: Law research databases, plus, all England Law Reports, Encyclopaedia of Forms and Precedents and Atkins Court Forms.

Lawtel: Up-to-the-minute case law, PI quantum reports, statutory law, SIs, parliamentary bills, command papers, practice directions and an index of articles from law journals.

ProbonoUK: A site with an online community for sharing information and resources for lawyers involved in Probono work.

The Law Society: Represents solicitors in England and Wales, negotiating with and lobbying the profession’s regulators, government and others. The site has a regularly updated news section.

Bookmark It

No related posts.

Enshrined in convention, the privacy of the court is as sacred today as it ever has been, but perhaps not for much longer. Plans to introduce television cameras in court are currently being reviewed by the British Government, potentially signalling the end of a practice that has long sought to protect the integrity of the judiciary and the anonymity of the jury.

As the government ponders its position on the issue, it ought to be noted that the Supreme Court already permits the use of cameras; in fact, according to former Justice Minister, Lord Bach, the Supreme Court was established in part to provide “much, much more access” to the public than the House of Lords.

Upon the request of the media, proceedings undertaken by the Supreme Court, including all decision-making, are broadcast on television. Cameras are permanently installed in the Supreme Court to provide a clearer separation of the judiciary and the executive.

The government is seemingly not content with there being only one court in the land to televise legal proceedings. In September, a spokesperson for Number 10 announced, “we are considering proposals put forward by broadcasters to allow limited recording and transmission from courts in specific circumstances. However, before any firm proposals are developed, the Lord Chancellor will wish to consult on the principle of broadcasting from court with the senior judiciary.”

Although introducing cameras to courts throughout England and Wales (limited broadcasts are already permitted in Scotland) could threaten the security of the jury, the move would also probably improve transparency, which is the hallmark of any fair and just legal system. Curiously, however, the decision to review the banning of cameras in UK courts was instigated by the boss of Sky News, John Ryley, who wrote a letter to Ken Clarke, the Justice Secretary, in January to suggest that proceedings be televised.

After Prime Minister David Cameron was reported to have backed the move, Mr Ryley stated that Sky News “looked forward to working with the judiciary to bring about more transparency in our justice system.”

Possibly buoyed by public concerns over the handling of recent high-profile cases, not least those involving rioters and celebrity super-injunctions, the government is obviously keen to improve transparency at the cost of privacy (not that such a tort truly exists in the common law). If cameras are installed in courts, the government does risk some controversy.

While caution should be exercised in curtailing transparency to any extent, it is essential that judicial proceedings are not compromised or hindered by the presence of televised broadcasts. It is for this reason that the introduction of cameras is only being suggested in a limited capacity; only sentencing would be broadcast, not the verdict of the jury or any other aspect of the trial, at least initially. If cameras are introduced in court, it is perhaps only a matter of time before complete transparency is achieved. How much of an achievement that would prove remains to be seen.

Bookmark It

No related posts.