The new website is http://www.mylawyer.co.uk and, having had a look around the site, it is easy to navigate and offers some excellent value for many documents, still with the ability to have a document checked by lawyers.

It will be interesting to find out how things pan out in the legal market, with Epoq, Rocketlawyer, Quality Solicitors, tesco law and all sort sof other fast moving developments – there hasn’t been so much activity in the legal market probably for a century !

Whilst many lawyers are still snoozing and don’t recognize that the market for legal services online, like the market for everything online, is becoming ever more important, a number of the new breed of legal document suppliers are well and truly “making hay”.

Whilst one size may not fit all with many legal documents, as against this, there are many situations where a standardized or fairly standardised legal contract or document, available at a tiny fraction of the charges of solicitors, is a very attractive option, particularly now that a number of the legal document suppliers are offering interactive services and documents.

As a sign of this burgeoning market and threat to law firms who simply continue burying their heads in the sand, a mere 5 months after raising $18.5 million, Rocket Lawyer, one of the most successful of the US online legal services providers has now raised a further $10.8 million.

Like many of the legal services companies, in addition to selling document, contracts, legal forms and other services, the power of their site and their brand is being used to partner up with relevant local law firms for situations where the standard contracts does not fit a particular set of issues or circumstances. Again, smart thinking. We have to say we have little sympathy with lawyers, many of whom have done little to nothing to invest in their own marketing and then whinge when other companies do their marketing for them, charge them fees and then control the legal marketplace.

Fraud generally has been on the rise for several years at least, possibly partly because of a degree of economic desperation or greed and partly also because of a creeping feeling that some aspects are not even criminal, of which we will say more in other posts.

However there has most certainly been a big problem with personal injury claim fraud, principally so called postcode or whiplash claim fraud for some time, and rankly the insurers have done far too little to stamp this out. Instead their answer has simply been to a rise premiums for all, so the innocent suffer.

This is truly ridiculous in our view. In some areas of Britain, and even on some streets, individuals claim to be incredibly accident prone, and there is no doubt there have been literally thousands of stage managed shunts and minor accidents.

But this problem is not confined to the UK. Injury claims and accidents are a lucrative business in other parts of the worlds, and the type of fraud is slightly different.

In Florida, to counter escalating costs of claims and fraud, action was taken some years ago to try and curtail it. Law was passed whereby a system of no-fault insurance became compulsory way back in 1972. This meant that all drivers would have to have $10,000.00 of personal-injury insurance cover which they would claim against regardless if fault, with compensatory damages capped at low levels. Entirely sensible and likely to all but eradicate fraud you would think … well think again.

But over the years, the number of claims which mysteriously would amount to the full $10,000.00 has hugely increased. Why ? Yes, you guessed it, cozy cartels, where brokers would make it in the interests of  lawyers, doctors and the insured to make the figures inflated.

We suppose this just shows that, rather than increase premiums, insurers should be much more bullish in monitoring all aspects of claims and looking to stamp out these trends wherever they arise.

The easy option of simply raising premiums until the problem is so obvious it can’t be ignored is totally outrageous on the law abiding majority in our view. What do you think ?

One of the most frustrating aspects of the current Employment Tribunal system for employers is the general “no costs “rule for claims made in the Tribunal.

This, combined with the fact that there are no court fees payable for Tribunal claims (unlike almost all other court services in England & Wales) has meant that many employees and ex-emp0loyees have felt that they have nothing to lose by bringing a claim, even if only motivated by spite or perceived revenge.

Bearing in mind employers can easily rack up costs of thousands defending any employment claim, many opt for making payouts, often via compromise agreements, as the “lesser of 2 evils”.

The employment tribunal does have discretion to award legal costs against either party based on abusive, vexatious or disruptive behavior, although historically such orders have been rare, but perhaps they are now on the increase.

In a recent case, costs awarded against an employee were awarded and these have now been assessed and moderated at a staggering £100,000.00, which is way above the usual limit of £10,000.00 (again the Tribunal has discretion to allow more than this basic limit).

Is this just a one-off case or does it herald a new approach by the Tribunals which will stem the ever increasing tide of tribunal claims ?

In addition to many interesting (and disturbing) aspects of the current News of the World hacking scandal, interesting employment and contract law issues arise relating to the many journalists who have lost their jobs with the sudden closure of the publication.

Employment solicitors advise that should any of the journalists struggle to secure new jobs, they may argue that this failure is related to their professional reputation being impugned by association.

A 1997 House of Lords ruling provides a little known legal basis for claiming damages, based on breach of contract and in particular, a breach of the duty of mutual trust and confidence inherent in all employment contracts. However, when the judgment was given in the 1997 case, the Judge did state that these types of claims, due to the myriad reasons a prospective employee might not succeed with a job application, would be “inherently difficult to prove”.

A recent poll conducted by RTS Media with 500 consumers contains some good news for solicitors and there has been precious little of that around for many months. First, the mildly bad news. It seems that nearly 1/3 of consumers would be prepared to instruct a major brand, not currently associated with law, as soon as that brand enters the legal marketplace.

On the other hand, for some types of matters, such as divorce and conveyancing, the percentage who would much prefer to instruct a solicitor was between 70-80%. This is good news for solicitors although perceptions may well change when and if some major brands enter the market. Solicitors have traditionally not prioritised marketing and it seems to us that what this survey shows is that most of the market is still there for solicitors to lose but a different attitude, budget for marketing, and ensuring this is well spent are likely to be critical in the next few years.

The Law Society is lobbying the Government hard to think again about the extensive planned cuts to legal aid, which would potentially remove access to justice for as many as 500,000 cases a year. The Government seems intent on rushing through these measures rapidly and part of the Law Society “beef” is that there has been no proper consultation and that this is vital as the type of cases which would be affected involve fundamental legal rights in areas such as divorce, maintenance for children and medical negligence.

Other arguments put forward by the Law Society are that the Government thinking that significant sums will be saved by reducing legal aid is flawed and that such costs will simply reappear in different areas, such as there will be more litigants in person which will create delays and inefficiencies in court process and increase court costs and that there will also be a “double whammy” in that if legal aid is reduced more claimants will look for no win no fee agreements, and the Government is planning to only allow a claimant’s legal costs on success to come out any award and not be payable by the opponent as a success fee. This will again reduce access to justice the Law Society claims.

The UK’s legal industry, with an annual turnover of £18bn, could be severely damaged, the society claims. It has offered the government an alternative programme for saving £384m through reducing unnecessary court hearings and other efficiencies.

The Law Society has received criticism from some solicitors in the past for either not reacting or reacting too late to changes which affect solicitors. The Law Society seems to have listened to this and has gone as far as commencing a media campaign under the banner “Sound Off for Justice”. These “adverts” are appearing on taxis around London now.

Jonathan Romain, a Berkshire rabbi  has devised a 20 question quiz which he believes may help couples to find out if they are suited.

According to a 2008 population trends report from the Vital Statistics Output Branch, from the Office of National Statistics, one in two marriages end in divorce in England and Wales.

Below are the questions from Dr Romain :-

•             Do you know your partner’s  favourite food ?

•             Will your partner want to get a pet in the future ?

•             Does your partner suffer from any allergies ?

•             Describe one of the happiest moments of your partner’s life before you met ?

•             Answer the same question regarding the saddest moment ?

•             Does  your partner want to have children and if so, how many and when?

•             How regularly does your partner  visit  family ?

•             Are there any family traditions your partner has which he/she would wish to continue?

•             What is your partner’s favourite kind of holiday ?

•             Is  your partner  a saver or spender by nature ?

•             Is it easy for you to buy him/her a birthday present ?

•             Where would your partner like to live in the foreseeable future ?

•             Who is the biggest  influence on your partner excluding you ?

•             Your partner’s  greatest regret ?

•             Joint,  separate bank accounts or a combination ?

•             Private or public  education  for children?

•             Summarise the partner’s ideal view of the future?

•             What  habits or characteristics do you have which  he/she does not like?

•             What would you most like to change about him/her?

•             What are the main values he/she has?

We have highlighted some of the questions in bold as being very obviously significant and perhaps indicative of whether a relationship may flourish. Some of the others we are not sure about, but that’s just our opinion. Dr Romain concludes that getting 15 or more answers correct indicates a  great future, 9 to 14 suggest good chances but work is needed and less than 8 right suggests thinking again !.

Some good news for consumers today in that the major banks have lost a High Court challenge they brought to the principle that they will be liable retrospectively for any mis-sold payment protection insurance (ppi) policies. The decision has significant implications in that :-

• around 3 million people may now receive compensation
• The FSA estimates PPI providers will need to pay up to £1.3 billion in compensation for new complaints in the next 5 years, and up to £3.2 billion as a result of the obligation legally to  review previous PPI sales and advise customers affected by mis-selling.

We would highly recommend taking a look at a very amusing post on the divorce blog of some well known divorce lawyers in London. There are rumours that Prince William and Kate may have signed a prenuptial agreement. these agreements are becoming increasingly important. If you have any suggestions as to what might be added in the mock agreement, please do let us know, but obvioulsy, nothing libellous or abusive please !