Liverpool Solicitors

Legal marketing part 2 – how it can be done

admin — Mon, 02 Apr 2012 14:35:08 +0000

In our first post on legal marketing we pointed out the problem for many small firms – it’s all very well griping about problems, that’s what solicitors do you may say anyway ! So, where’s the solution ?

Well, small law firms can’t compete with a #15 million tv advertising campaign like Quality Solicitors new campaign, but with some investment and good online marketing ability, which is out there, solicitors can certainly do a lot more to compete online, where it’s about good content, written for readers not lawyers, in plain english, and leveraged by a good seo consultant, which is within the budget of many firms. a lot of law firms have a brochure website which may say :-

“come to us, we’re very good ..”

“we’ve been around for 200 years”

that’s all well and good, but if no-one other than existing clients sees that content, it’s ….. invisible. that’s the trap most law firms fall into, and perhaps not appreciating that, literally, about 20% and increasing of the legal market is now derived via internet searches, that’s a big part of the pie in any sector.

With sustained investment and a strategy based on not only having a highly effective main website, but also some topic or geographical sites, smaller law firms can do very nicely thank you. As an example, Darlingtons Solicitors in London not only have a very successful main site, but a number of popular topic site dealing with topics like business law, employment law, family law and wills and probate. so, it can be done, and there’s no time to waste …

“

Legal marketing – things hotting up (part 1)

admin — Mon, 02 Apr 2012 14:23:35 +0000

Lawyers take some serious stick, some of it merited some not. One area where we have to say we think they deserve it is in fact not client facing, it’s about marketing.

A lot of solicitors and law firms still operate as though clients should come to them, that they are professionals and it’s not, to coin a phrase “cricket” to be seen to be marketing. This is plain wrong and accounts perhaps for the malaise many small firms are encountering, which is fast becoming a fight for survival. Accountants are also professionals but most are streets ahead when it comes to marketing.

The other reason that many solicitors don’t like marketing where we have a modicum (but no more) of sympathy is that marketing means investment and effort, and it comes with risk. There are no guarantees, although with skill, monitoring and some creativity, it is not high risk. But solicitors do not like risk.

Personal injury claim solicitors act more like business people than most other lawyers and the striking thing is, they get marketing and have created thriving businesses. They understand that law is competitive and people make judgments and that an online, highly visible presence is very important. Good luck to them.

The upshot of the fact that so many small law firms don’t get it or want to get it is that others have done it for them, and are selling them the leads or starting to take over. Quality Solicitors is the prime example of this, slick, clever and successful marketing.

It may already be too late for many law firms, but those who are still doing ok should wake up fast and take control of their destiny. By the way, we’re saying nothing new, many have been saying this for years, but falling on deaf ears. Such is life !

Insuring Your Key People

Matt — Tue, 28 Jun 2011 06:18:00 +0000

Taking out insurance on the life and/or health of a person key to your company’s business is often a very sensible precaution.

The premiums for such insurance can be set against the business tax liability if paid by the company, provided the benefit of the policy is received by the company and:

the sole relationship between the business and the person insured is that of employer and employee;
the person insured owns 5 per cent or less of the company’s shares;
the insurance is intended to compensate the business for the loss of profit resulting from the loss of the employee’s contribution to it; and
the policy term expires when the employee leaves the business (i.e. it is not a whole-of-life policy).

In such circumstances, the premiums are tax deductible. However, any receipt by the business resulting from a claim under the policy will be taxable.

If the premiums are not deductible for tax purposes, receipts under the policy will not be taxable.

Where the beneficiary under such a policy is the employee, the premium is a benefit in kind.

Pension payments paid to UK insurers are normally tax deductible.

It should also be noted that a company’s right to receive a lump sum from a life assurance policy might make the value of the company greater at the date of death of the life assured, which may have implications for Inheritance Tax purposes.

Always take professional advice when setting up key man insurance and pension schemes.

Time Limits Prevent Flooding and Damp Claim

Matt — Fri, 24 Jun 2011 10:44:00 +0000

A couple who had large-scale alterations to their house done, including the creation of a substantial basement room, found that the basement suffered from substantial water penetration, which commenced shortly after it was completed in 2001.

The ingress of water necessitated substantial remedial work. However, between 2002 and 2008, however, damp sports appeared and the problem worsened. By the summer of 2008, water was beginning to accumulate under the floor.

The homeowners commenced legal proceedings against the architects and builders in 2010. Various claims were made, of which almost all related to the original construction work done. The defendants argued that the couple’s claim was ‘out of time’ under the Limitation Act.

The builder argued that a claim for breach of contract would have had to be brought by 2008 (six years after the date of the relevant breach). A claim in tort (i.e. for damages due to a civil wrong) would have to be brought within three years of the damage for which compensation is sought occurring. The damage initially occurred between late 2001 and the March 2002, making a claim after March 2005 ‘out of time’.

The couple argued that they did not have sufficient knowledge to commence a claim until 2007, so the claims were ‘in time’.

The starting date for making such a claim is the ‘earliest date’ on which the claimant had the knowledge of sufficient essential facts to bring a claim in damages or to take advice about bringing a claim.

The judge concluded that the couple had sufficient knowledge in 2002 to ‘set the clock running’ with regard to all the claims relating to the original construction work. Those claims were therefore out of time and failed. The two claims that related to the rectification work could be argued to be ‘in time’ and remain to be tried in court.

When you discover a problem which may lead to a claim in damages, it is essential to act promptly. Failure to do so can be a very expensive error if it leads to the court refusing to hear a claim because it has not been brought in time.

Animals and the Law

Matt — Thu, 23 Jun 2011 14:04:00 +0000

Damage by animals is not common, in spite of the lurid headlines one sees in the popular press. However, if your animal does cause damage or injury to someone else, what is the extent of your liability?

The relevant law is contained in the Animals Act 1971. This stipulates that if the animal concerned is not a domesticated animal, you will be liable for any damage or injury it causes – so make sure your pet tiger doesn’t escape!

However, if damage is caused by a domesticated animal, the situation is more complex.

There are three tests that determine the liability of the owner of the animal. These are:

Is the damage the sort of thing which is likely to occur if the animal is left unrestrained or is likely to be severe if the animal is unrestrained?
Is the damage caused by the animal due to a characteristic of the animal which is not normally found in the species (which is interpreted in case law as applying to breeds, rather then species as such)? and
Does the animal’s keeper have knowledge of the characteristic of the animal which is at the root of the damage?

The main problem for animal owners is that the phrase ‘likely to occur’ in this context is taken to mean ‘foreseeable’, which is a less stringent test.

If You Need to Get Plastered – Ask Your Landlord

Matt — Mon, 20 Jun 2011 10:35:00 +0000

When it comes to repair obligations under a lease, most of the respective obligations of landlord and tenant are clear. Occasionally, however, something crops up for which responsibility isn’t clear; and then, the scene is set for a dispute.

Recently, the Court of Appeal had to decide just such a dispute. It dealt with a simple question – ‘If a landlord is responsible for the walls of a property, is it also responsible for the plaster on the walls? ‘

The question was raised by a tenant who had systemic damp problems in the property he rented and who wanted to force the landlord to take remedial action.

The Court ruled conclusively that in such circumstances the responsibility for maintaining the plasterwork on the walls lies with the landlord.

Grand v Gill [2011] EWCA Civ 554

Prosecution HIghlights Need for Risk Assessment and Control

Matt — Sat, 18 Jun 2011 08:46:00 +0000

A plant hire company has been fined £7,000 and ordered to pay costs of £10,000 following an accident on a building site in which an excavator bucket filled with concrete fell off the arm of the machine supplied by the company and crushed the site foreman to death.

The plant hire firm and the man who was operating the excavator when the accident occurred were both convicted of breaches of health and safety legislation. The operator was fined £700 and ordered to pay costs of £1,000. The main contractor, which has now entered administration, also faces charges for having failed adequately to plan, manage and monitor the construction workand failing to take reasonably practicable steps that would have prevented the accident.

The accident happened because of the failure to insert a ‘safety pin’ necessary to enable the bucket to be locked to the arm of the excavator.

The plant hire company was convicted on the grounds that it ‘did not have a suitable regime of inspection for the plant it hired out to ensure safety conditions were maintained’ and that it had ‘also supplied the eq uipment without adequate safety warning signs, written information and instruc tions or CE marking’. The company had also neglected to ensure the attachments supplied with the excavator were maintained in an efficient state, working order and in good repair.

The operator had failed to take adequate care when positioning the bucket.

When an accident could easily have been avoided, as in this case, the HSE often spreads the net of blame widely. It is important for those with health and safety responsibilities to be aware of the scope of their duties. Whilst an error may appear to be mainly the fault of one person, ‘liability creep’ can easily occur unless careful risk assessment and minimisation procedures are in place.

Scaffold Fall Brings Compensation

Matt — Fri, 17 Jun 2011 13:56:00 +0000

A maintenance operative who carried on working after suffering a fall was found to have ruptured a tendon in his knee after seeing his doctor the next day.

The 45 year-old man was carrying equipment down steps attached to scaffolding when he lost his balance. One of the steps had not been properly secured and, as he stepped on it, it tilted forwards causing him to fall heavily onto his left knee.

After surgery to reconstruct his tendon, a wire was inserted into his knee to support it while it healed. Four months later, he had a further operation to have the wire removed and then began a course of physiotherapy. In total, he was unable to work for eight months while he recovered, resulting in a substantial loss of earnings. Although he has now returned to work, he has been told that he will never fully recover from the injuries he suffered.

The man commenced a personal injury claim against his employer. The employer’s insurance company admitted liability for the accident and the claim was settled for £44,000.

If you have been injured at work through no fault of your own, you could be entitled to compensation. Contact us for advice on making a claim.

Belgium Authorities to Release Account Details

Matt — Fri, 17 Jun 2011 12:31:00 +0000

15,000 Britons with bank accounts in Belgium will have their details

opened up to HM Revenue and Customs by 1 July according to an announcement made today.

The move is the latest in a series of agreements between fiscal authorities in Europe to trade information on bank accounts held by non-nationals.

Also released today was the news that the Spanish tax authorities are to investigate the UK chief of Santander, Ana Botin, for tax evasion relating to monies held in Swiss bank accounts.

Home on the Farm Policy to Tackle Rural Housing

Matt — Thu, 16 Jun 2011 15:21:00 +0000

The availability of affordable housing in rural areas has been a problem for many years, with young people often having to move away in order to find employment that will enable them to get on the housing ladder.

Such housing as is available in the countryside is often bought as holiday or weekend homes by people from outside the area, keeping the cost of housing unaffordable for those employed locally and, in some cases, causing the creation of ‘ghost villages’; which are virtually deserted a lot of the time, especially on weekdays in the winter. The effect on the local retail economy can also be devastating.

In a bid to combat these issues, the Government has suggested that councils in rural areas consider changing their planning policies to allow unused farm buildings to be converted to use for residential purposes, rather than insisting that they only be used as farm buildings.

This idea is part of the 'Home on the Farm' scheme, the aim of which is to turn unused farm buildings into affordable housing. It is hoped that young families will thereby be able to remain in their local communities, rather than having to move to cities to find housing.

The Government hopes to adopt the scheme nationally. It has been outlined in the Government's response to the Commons Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee's report into farming in England's upland areas.