How A Criminal Defense Lawyer Can Help You

If you have been charged with a crime, whether a misdemeanor or a felony, it is very important that you work with a criminal defense attorney throughout the entire process.

Whether or not you think that the situation is serious, there may be a lot more at risk than is immediately apparent, and you could find yourself looking back on this case years from now wishing that you had taken some different steps. Criminal law is complicated, which is why it is so important that you take this process seriously and work with an experienced Criminal Defense Attorney in Fort Worth.

Many criminal defense attorneys offer free initial consultations with potential clients so that they can ask a variety of questions about their situation and learn about the most appropriate steps that they should be taking to move forward with as much success as possible.

HELP NAVIGATING THE CRIMINAL LAW SYSTEM

The criminal law system in the United States is complicated and confusing, especially for individuals who do not have a comprehensive understanding of the situation that they are involved in, and the possible consequences of a guilty finding or plea agreement. If you are at a court hearing working with a prosecutor, they will make an initial offer for the individual to accept a guilty finding, or may make an initial offer for a plea deal. While this may seem like the proper decision given the circumstances and the individual may want to get the process finished with, it could come back to cause a major issue.

NEGOTIATING ACCEPTABLE OUTCOMES

You may have noticed that there is a theme here, and it all comes down to working towards the most acceptable outcome for your situation. Every step that your attorney takes will be with the intention to get you the lightest possible sentence, the most minimum penalties available for your charges, and how you can mitigate the impact that these charges have on your life. When you are working on your own and attempting to represent yourself, courts and prosecutors will take advantage of your inexperience and you will find yourself walking away with steep penalties without much clarity on how it even happened.

PROFESSIONAL ADVICE FOR YOUR SPECIFIC CASE

When you hire an attorney to represent your case, they are working directly on your behalf in order to help you with your case. This means that any action you think about taking outside of the case that you are unsure of how it will impact your proceedings, then you will be able to consult with them. If you are wondering how your case will impact your ability to apply for jobs, renew a drivers license, apply for housing, or anything else that is unclear at the time, you will be able to contact your attorney and get a specific answer about the exact situation that you are in. While this may not seem like a big deal right off the bat, you will find that their advice and counsel throughout your case is absolutely irreplaceable because of how simple it will make each of these otherwise complicated questions seem.

CONFIDENCE IN YOUR CASE

The most important thing that you will get from working with a criminal defense attorney is confidence. You will be able to get straight answers from them about your entire situation and will be able to plan accordingly for your future given their history of experience and their understanding of how they expect your case to go. 

No deal Brexit disastrous for aspiring lawyers, Law Society warn

Disruptive departure could damage UK’s ability to attract and retain world’s top legal talent

A no deal Brexit will be disastrous for those seeking to enter the legal profession, a new report produced by the Law Society has warned.

The professional body, which represents 140,000 practising solicitors in England and Wales, has raised fresh concerns over the impact “Brexit disruption” will have on law graduates and junior lawyers’ moving around Europe.

According to the Law Society’s UK-EU future partnership and legal services report, published this morning, a no deal Brexit could also damage the UK’s ability to attract and retain the world’s top legal talent. It said:

“This has an impact on the attractiveness of qualifying in England and Wales. Their rights to provide services under their home title, to establish and practise in Europe and to requalify in host state law will all become more complex under an FTA [free trade agreement] or in case of a no-deal Brexit.”

The report added: “The prospective candidates from the EU may no longer be attracted to studying in the UK and getting an English and Welsh qualification since they cannot use it in their home country to the same degree as under the current regime.”

Aspiring lawyers wouldn’t be the only ones left worse off from a no deal departure. According to the Law Society’s president, Simon Davis, a crash-out Brexit could cost Britain’s legal services sector an eyewatering £3.5 billion, nearly 10% higher than under an “orderly Brexit”.

The 2019 Legal Cheek Firms Most List

The UK stands as the EU’s largest exporter of legal services. According to Davis, the sector contributed £27 billion to the UK economy in 2018 and produced a trade surplus of £4.4 billion in 2017 — this largely the result of the UK’s access to European markets through directives. Davis continued:

“That is why we are urging the UK government to negotiate a future agreement that enables broader access for legal services so that English and Welsh solicitors can maintain their right to practise in the EU.”

Newly-installed Prime Minister Boris Johnson has pledged to negotiate a better exit agreement with the EU, but maintains the UK will leave on 31 October with or without a deal.

This isn’t the first time the Law Society has shared its bleak Brexit fears. Last year, Chancery Lane’s number crunchers predicted that a no deal scenario could cost the legal market up to £3 billion by 2025, with growth slumping to 1.1%.

Merritt J. Green

Brief Survey of Non-Compete Law impacting East Coast States

There has been a recent trend of states moving to limit the application of restrictive covenants, especially post-employment non-compete agreements, on employees.  Within the past year, Maryland, Maine, Massachusetts, and New Hampshire have all passed legislation restricting the enforceability of non-competition agreements against low-wage earning employees.  This is a growing national trend that all attorneys should monitor.  

Provided below is a brief survey of states with laws restricting non-compete agreements and general guidelines for other East Coast states.    

Connecticut:   No state legislation restricting non-compete agreements.  Case law holds that a covenant must be reasonable as relevant to time period, geographic scope, ability of employee to earn livelihood, protection to employer, and public interest.

Delaware:  No state legislation.  Case law holds that a covenant must be reasonable to be enforceable balancing legitimate interests of employer, ability of employee to earn livelihood, and public’s interest.

Florida:  Florida statute 542.335 requires that non-compete agreements be reasonable and necessary to protect the legitimate interests of the employer.  Case law applies balancing test.

Georgia:  Georgia Code 13-8-53 provides, in relevant part, that post-employment contracts that restrict competition shall not be permitted against any employee who does not, in the course of his or her employment:  

(1) Customarily and regularly solicit for the employer customers or prospective customers;  (2) Customarily and regularly engage in making sales or obtaining orders or contracts for products or services to be performed by others; (3) Perform the following duties: (A) Have a primary duty of managing the enterprise in which the employee is employed or of a customarily recognized department or subdivision thereof; (B) Customarily and regularly direct the work of two or more other employees;  and (C) Have the authority to hire or fire other employees or have particular weight given to suggestions and recommendations as to the hiring, firing, advancement, promotion, or any other change of status of other employees;  or (4) Perform the duties of a key employee or of a professional.

Maryland:  On May 25, 2019, Maryland enacted SB 328, which prohibits employers from entering into non-competition agreements with employees who earn equal to or less than $15 an hour or $31,200 annually. Under this new law, for employees earning wages at or below this threshold, non-compete agreements that “restrict[] the ability of an employee to enter into employment with a new employer or to become self-employed in the same or similar business or trade shall be null and void as being against the public policy of the State.”  The law becomes effective October 1, 2019.

Maine:  As of September 18, 2019, Maine employers are prohibited from having non-compete restrictions for any employee earning at or below 300% of the federal poverty level.  Furthermore, for all employees, no non-compete can take effect before the employee has worked at least one year, or six months after signing (whichever is later). And, employee must be provided three (3) days to consider before signing non-compete.

Massachusetts:  Effective October 1, 2018, Massachusetts banned non-compete restrictions for anyone classified as a non-exempt employee.  To be enforceable, a non-compete agreement must also, be in writing, be signed by both employer and employee, must advise employee of right to seek legal counsel before signing, and must be provided to employee with employment offer or ten (10) business days before the state of employment, whichever is earlier.  A “noncompetition agreement” is defined as “an agreement between an employer and an employee, . . . under which the employee or expected employee agrees that he or she will not engage in certain specified activities competitive with his or her employer after the employment relationship has ended.”  

New Jersey:  The New Jersey legislature has considered bills to restrict employer use of non-compete agreements, but nothing has passed yet.  Courts will enforce non-compete agreements that are reasonable in scope and duration.

New Hampshire:  passed legislation outlawing non-competes for “low wage” workers, defined as hourly rate that is less than or equal to 200% of federal minimum wage ($14.50 per hour).  This law takes effect in September 8, 2019. A “noncompete agreement” is defined as “an agreement between an employer and a low wage employee that restricts such low wage employee from performing:  (1) work for another employer for a specified period of time; (2) work in a specified geographic area; or (3) work for another employer that is similar to such low wage employee’s work for the employer who is party to the agreement.”

New York:  No laws prohibiting non-compete agreements.  A non-compete is only allowed and enforceable to the extent it (1) is necessary to protect the employer’s legitimate interests, (2) does not impose an undue hardship on the employee, (3) does not harm the public, and (4) is reasonable in time period and geographic scope.

North Carolina:  Courts will enforce non-compete agreements if supported by consideration, reasonable about time and territory, and designed to protect legitimate business interest.

Pennsylvania:  No legislation controlling.  Will be enforced if supported by consideration and reasonable to rights of employer, employee and public interest.

Rhode Island:  The Rhode Island legislature passed noncompete law on July 11, 2019 (it is not effective yet, still waiting on governor’s signature).  The law will prohibit non-compete agreements with low-wage employees with average annual earnings of less than 250% of the federal poverty level.

South Carolina:  Non-compete agreements will be enforceable if supported by consideration and are reasonable in not over-reaching employer’s legitimate business interests nor overly burdening employee’s ability to earn a livelihood.

Vermont:  No legislation restricting non-compete agreements.  Will be enforced if reasonable.

Virginia:  Non-compete agreements will be enforceable if supported by consideration and are reasonable in not over-reaching employer’s legitimate business interests nor overly burdening employee’s ability to earn a livelihood.

Conclusion:  Post-employment non-compete agreements are either being outlaws or facing greater judicial scrutiny.  Employers should utilize them sparingly. However, employers still can protect confidential information and client relationships.  Accordingly, attorneys should focus clients on Confidentiality Agreements, trade secret protection, and non-solicitation restrictions (both protecting employees and clients).

Most importantly, whenever considering any post-employment restriction, to be enforceable, it should narrowly define the post-employment restriction to protect the legitimate interests of the employer, in relationship to the services the employee provided the employer during employment, and his or her post employment opportunities.

Merritt Green, General Counsel, P.C.  mgreen@gcpc.com –703-556-0411

Boris Johnson

Suspected Terrorists and illegal immigrants Deported

Taxpayers paid £57m to lawyers who successfully fought Government attempts to deport suspected terrorists and illegal immigrants

Two former justice ministers today urge Boris Johnson and the Government to rethink the practice to end such big pay-outs CREDIT: WPA POOL/GETTY IMAGES EUROPE

Taxpayers have had to foot a £57.5 million bill to pay off lawyers who successfully fought Home Office attempts to deport suspected terrorists, foreign criminals and illegal immigrants.

They have had to pay or settle the legal costs of lawyers who have often used European human rights laws to outflank the Home Office and win cases for their clients.

The 6,098 cases covering four years from 2014/15 to 2017/18 have involved foreign criminals, illegal immigrants and asylum seekers whom the Government unsuccessfully attempted to send back to their homelands, according to figures obtained under Freedom of Information laws.

It includes lawyers for hate preacher Abu Qatada who got £57,000 from the Home Office after they initially defeated its bid to send him back to Jordan to face terrorism charges. The Home Office paid their charges at a rate of £330 an hour.

Radical al-Aaida linked preacher, Abu Qatada

Radical al-Aaida linked preacher, Abu Qatada CREDIT: MOHAMMAD HANNON/AP

Two former justice ministers today urge Boris Johnson and the Government to rethink the practice to end such big pay-outs.

Mike Penning, a former policing and justice minister, said: “The Prime Minister needs to add this to his list of legislation that needs to be changed.

“If these people have been convicted and are not conducive to the public good, people won’t understand why we are paying out this money to lawyers abusing the legal system rather than spending it on the NHS.”

Oliver Heald, who was also a former Government law officer as solicitor general, said the Home Office should pay out where there was a serious mistake, but any awards should be “taxed on a reasonable basis so that it’s not possible to make a fortune out of these cases.

“They should be decided on a moderate basis rather than an expensive one. This is something the Ministry of Justice may wish to review.”

The £57.5 million for the 6,000 cases – equivalent to 30 every week for four years – excludes the additional £28.4 million that the Government had to pay for its own legal costs.

Oliver Heald

Oliver Heald, former Government law officer CREDIT: CHRIS MCANDREW / UK PARLIAMENT

The total of £86 million means the average case ends up costing the taxpayer more than £14,000 in legal fees.

Complex procedures around legal fees mean the Government can be forced to pay out extra payments on top of these to lawyers who successfully challenge legal rulings.

It is supposed to act as compensation to solicitors who may take on some cases where they lose and then end up potentially out of pocket with nobody to pay their costs.

But others believe the “No Win No Fee” culture has gone too far with lawyers able to get away with huge costs’ bills for winning cases against the state.

Other cases included lawyers for Kevin Kiarie, who fought deportation after being convicted of drug offences, who were paid expenses of £194,353. They won the case on the basis that having to appeal from abroad was a breach of his human rights under EU laws.

Human rights lawyers also won a court case claiming it was unfair to send migrants back to the EU country where they first arrived – and sent taxpayers a £600,000 bill for their work.

The lawyers, who charged £330-per-hour, represented an Iranian and three Eritreans who had smuggled their way into the UK after first claiming refugee status in Italy. Once in the UK, they lodged claims to stay here saying it would breach their human rights if they were sent back to Italy.

The Home Office said it took seriously its duty to spend public money effectively. Given the volume of cases, it was “unsurprising” it faced a number of legal challenges: “We have a good track record in defending Judicial Reviews of decisions but remain committed to learning where the Courts do not find in our favour.”

ACCN Leading the Way in Anti-Corruption Compliance in China

Duxes is pleased to announce that the 13th Anti-Corruption Compliance in China Summit 2019 (ACCN) will take place in Beijing from November 13-15. The event aims to meet companies’ demands by helping them control their overheads, understand the latest trends and developments, and establish anti-corruption compliance culture in their enterprises.

Due to advances in the legal system, Chinese law enforcement departments are attaching greater importance than ever to industries that have a high occurrence of commercial bribery. But what exactly is the current status of China’s anti-corruption policy? How can companies manage regulatory compliance? How can corruption be better investigated and prevented? And, does the FCPA compliance system for foreign-funded enterprises work in China? All of these questions will be answered and solved at ACCN.

For this year’s event, Duxes will invite leaders and managers from the Securities and Exchange Commission, the Serious Fraud Office and the State Administration for Market Regulation to interpret the latest developments in anti-corruption policies and regulations. Furthermore, speakers from leading foreign-funded enterprises and policy-making bodies will exchange and share their valuable opinions on anti-corruption practices and management.

Highlights:  

  1. Changes in how the Chinese government is investigating commercial bribery under the latest Anti-unfair Competition Law
  2. Interpretation of the latest development of the FCPA and the risks of Chinese enterprises participating in overseas M&A
  3. Interpretation of the latest policy on anti-commercial bribery in the pharmaceutical industry
  4. Gifts, entertainment and hospitality: best practices for companies operating in high-risk markets
  5. The impact of the EU’s General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) on enterprise anti-bribery compliance
  6. Real-life lessons learned on how to restore, reset and remodel your compliance structure post-prosecution or settlement
  7. Risk-based change management strategies for overseeing 3rd party, vendor, supplier and partner relationships in high-risk markets

For further information, please contact:

Ms. Cindy CUI

Tel.: + 86 21 5258 8005 ext. 8253

Email: events@duxes.cn

Website: http://www.duxes-compliancerisk.com/accn

Kelly Hyman

Kelly Hyman’s Journey from Child Actress to Top Class Attorney

Standing at 5’9″ in flats or bare feet, with shoulder length long blonde hair and bluish green eyes, American attorney Kelly Hyman may come across as someone who is about to walk the red carpet more than someone you would meet in a courtroom

20190422095053-jjdjd.jpeg

After being discovered by Charlton Heston and landing the role of Loretta on “The Young and the Restless” – Attorney Kelly Hyman set her sights on becoming the next Eric Brokovich.

Standing at 5’9” in flats or bare feet, with shoulder length long blonde hair and bluish green eyes, American attorney Kelly Hyman may come across as someone who is about to walk the red carpet more than someone you would meet in a courtroom.  That’s probably because before she went on to receive accolades like receiving the AV Preeminent Rating from Martindale-Hubbell three years in a row (the highest possible rating for attorneys), and before being named one of the top 25 class action trial lawyers in her home state of Colorado, Kelly Hyman was enjoying a successful career as a child actor.

Born in Miami Beach, Florida and then raised by her single mother, first in Southern California, and later moving to New York City, Kelly Hyman is probably most known for her role as Loretta on the iconic daytime television program “The Young and The Restless” as well as lending her voice to the now infamous “Gimme a break” commercial for Kit Kat.  Her Hollywood looks and ability to navigate the screen continue to serve her now in her prominent legal career.  Leveraging her legal skills and her background as a performer, she now appears as a regular legal contributor and voice of reason on difficult and controversial topics like the nationally covered Jussie Smollett hate crime hoax case, voters’ rights, free speech and key concerns among today’s working women.

Interview:

You grew up in California and had a successful career as a child actor.  How did you get into acting, and what were some of your favorite projects?

My mother was a single mother who was struggling financially. She was however a tennis pro and was teaching Charleston Heston tennis lessons in southern California. My mom asked Mr. Heston if he could help get me an agent and he did. I started doing commercials at age 5.  One of my favorite projects that I worked on was a movie called “Doin’ Time on Planet Earth” with Adam West from Batman. I remember my first day on the set and Adam West was dressed up as a police officer and not knowing who he was, my mother, who was born in Australia,  approached him and said, officer, and he smiled and said yes, my mom then asked him for the location of where I needed to check in for my day on the set, and Adam, pointed to the direction where I needed to go and told her to keep walking straight and it will be on the left side. My mother smiled and stated, thank you officer, and he, playing the role of the police officer, smiled, and stated that it was his pleasure.  It was an experience I will always cherish and never forget. I always smile when I think about it.

How did you transition from acting to law?

I knew that I always wanted to go to law school, and one of my dear friends from college suggested that I apply.  I realized that I reached a point in my acting career where I wanted to take a break and go to law school.

What made you pursue consumer protection law? 

I have always wanted to make a difference in this world and help people. Protecting people and fighting for their rights enables me to help them, and therefore have a positive effect on their lives.  Having a positive impact on people is my biggest motivation.

You have been called “a Modern Day Erin Brokovich” by the media, how do you feel when you hear that?  Was she an inspiration to you?

It is great to hear that people consider me a modern-day Erin Brockovich, she is truly an inspirational female role model, and it is incredibly humbling to be compared to someone that has created the kind of legacy that she has. She has fought for and helped so many people and continues to help people and have a positive effect on people’s lives even to this day.

She is an inspiration to me because she wants to make a difference in people’s lives and truly help them. Justice works when people stand up for what they believe in.

What would you consider to be your most interesting case that you fought and won?

When I worked at a law firm in Florida, I worked on tobacco litigation and mass tort litigation where I represented people that were harmed by medical devices and drugs. These cases were interesting because I knew that my clients were harmed, and I wanted to help them. I represented women that had transvaginal mesh implanted and they had serious complications because of it. Knowing that I was helping undo a wrong and make a positive impact on these women’s lives is something that I will always truly cherish. Knowing that they received justice for their harm is something that I am most proud of in my legal career. Knowing that I was helping people and making a positive difference in their life is one of the things that I’m so thankful for every day. Knowing that I am helping people get justice for their harm.

What advice would you give your younger self?

Follow your dreams. You can achieve everything that you want. The only limitations that you have are the ones that you put on yourself. Be brave, be bold and be you.

Baker & Mckenzie

Baker McKenzie Advises Monomoy on Engineering Acquisition

Baker McKenzie advised private investment firm Monomoy Capital Partners in its acquisition of Kauffman Engineering Inc., an Indiana-based manufacturer of wire harnesses and cable assemblies for electrical systems.

Founded in 1973, Kauffman operates about 20 facilities across the United States and Mexico and serves clients across the HVAC, commercial equipment, specialty vehicle, lawn care, marine, medical and other industrial markets.

“We partner with our private equity clients to add value wherever we can and ensure a smooth process in negotiating and closing deals, so they are able to realize as much growth as possible. We are pleased to help Monomoy do just that in this acquisition,” said Michael Fieweger, Baker McKenzie’s lead M&A partner on the transaction.

Baker McKenzie has the world’s largest M&A practice, with nearly 1,400 lawyers executing more cross-border transactions than any other law firm.

The Baker McKenzie team included Michael Fieweger, Garry Jaunal and Emeka Chinwuba.

About Monomoy Capital Partners

Monomoy Capital Partners is a private equity firm with $1.5 billion in committed capital that invests in middle-market businesses in the manufacturing, industrial, distribution and consumer products sectors. The firm invests in the both the equity and debt of middle-market businesses that can benefit from operational and financial improvement. Monomoy designs and executes a customized value creation plan for each acquisition that seeks to generate significant cash flow and improve earnings within 12 to 18 months of an investment. Over the past 14 years, Monomoy has closed over 50 middle-market acquisitions. To learn more about Monomoy and its portfolio companies, please visit the firm’s website at www.mcpfunds.com.

 

Setting up a Company in the EU to become easier

EU company law is being updated to reflect the digital age. The Council today adopted a directive that facilitates and promotes the use of online tools in the contacts between companies and public authorities throughout their lifecycle.

The directive will provide improved online procedures, creating a modern and safe way for businesses to dismantle the obstacles involving setting up companies, registering their branches or filing documents, especially in cross border operations.

Ana Birchall, Minister of Justice, Vice Prime Minister for the implementation of Romania’s strategic partnerships, interim

The new rules ensure that:

  • companies are able to register limited liability companies, set up new branches and file documents in the business register fully online;
  • national model templates and information on national requirements are made available online and in a language broadly understood by the majority of cross-border users;
  • rules on fees for online formalities are transparent and applied in a non-discriminatory manner;
  • fees charged for the online registration of companies do not exceed the overall costs incurred by the member state concerned;
  • the ‘once-only’ principle applies, meaning that a company will only need to submit the same information to public authorities once;
  • documents submitted by companies are stored and exchanged by national registers in machine-readable and searchable formats;
  • more information about companies is made available to all interested parties free of charge in the business registers.

At the same time, the directive sets out the necessary safeguards against fraud and abuse in online procedures, including control of the identity and legal capacity of persons setting up the company and the possibility of requiring physical presence before a competent authority. It maintains the involvement of notaries or lawyers in company law procedures as long as these procedures can be completed fully online. It also foresees exchange of information between member states on disqualified directors in order to prevent fraudulent behaviour.

The directive does not harmonise substantive requirements for setting up companies or doing business across the EU.

Legal Aid

Legal aid ‘heroes’ honoured at special ceremony

Hundreds of legal aid lawyers gathered at a special ceremony in London last night to celebrate the unsung ‘heroes’ within their community.

The prestigious event, now in its 17th year, was founded by the Legal Aid Practitioners Group.

The evening began with special awards being presented to three people who the LAPG committee believe have made an exceptional contribution to legal aid and access to justice: Anselm Eldergill, a district judge in the Court of Protection, and barrister Rachel Francis and solicitor Oliver Carter, former co-chairs of the Young Legal Aid Lawyers group.

Eldergill told the ceremony that the justice budget had been cut by 40% since 2010, ‘not just decimated but decimated four times’.

He said: ‘It’s a depressing picture but would be even more depressing if it was not for your amazing efforts. I intend to return to practice next year and do my bit to rebuild the justice system that’s open to all citizens regardless of their means and social class.’

35238_joannececil_334923.jpg

Joanne Cecil with compère Anna Jones and presenter Helena Kennedy QC

Source: Robert Aberman

Garden Court Chambers’ Joanne Cecil, who won the legal aid barrister award, helped with crowdfunding efforts to provide every MP with a copy of legal blogger Secret Barrister’s book, Stories of the Law and How It’s Broken. Asked by host and Sky News presenter Anna Jones about whether the attitude in parliament has changed, Cecil said: ‘We have lots of nice words from the government but not a great deal of action yet – that’s really where the proof is.’

The social welfare law award went to solicitor William Ford of London firm Osbornes Law. Ford represented a vulnerable refugee and challenged a Hillingdon council housing policy, describing the three-year battle as one requiring endurance.

Solicitor Sally Thompson, who runs north London immigration practice Luqmani Thompson & Partners, praised her colleagues who she said ‘make me look good’ and talked about how proud she was of her team.

Duncan Lewis solicitor Raja Rajeswaran Uruthiravinayagan, who won the public law award, said he was surprised that he was shortlisted and joked: ‘I thought I got shortlisted because of my really long name.’ Ututhiravinayagan had to leave Sri Lanka due to the civil war when he was 13 and said that was the reason he specialised in human rights law.

35240_paulbowen_343265.jpg

Paul Bowen QC

Source: Richard Gray

This year’s ‘outstanding achievement’ award went to Paul Bowen QC, a human rights barrister at Brick Court Chambers, who acted in the right to die and assisted suicide cases brought by Debbie Purdy and Tony Nicklinson.

Bowen began his speech by applauding the audience, who he described as legal aid ‘heroes’. He concluded his speech with four tips for young legal aid lawyers: ‘Question everything; fear no one; prepare, prepare, prepare; shut up and sit down when you’re ahead.’

The full list of winners

Legal aid newcomer: Una Morris, Garden Court Chambers

Children’s rights: Edward Taylor, Osbornes Law

Legal aid barrister: Joanne Cecil, Garden Court Chambers

Family (including mediation): Philip Wilkins, Hudgell & Partners

Social welfare law: William Ford, Osbornes Law

Legal aid practice management: Sally Thompson, Luqmani Thompson & Partners

Legal aid firm/Not-for-profit agency: Child Poverty Action Group

Access to justice through IT: FormShare, GT Stewart

Criminal defence: Lydia Dagostino, Kellys Solicitors

Public Law: Raja Rajeswaran Uruthiravinayagan, Duncan Lewis

Outstanding achievement: Paul Bowen QC

LAPG special awards: Anselm Eldergill, district judge; Rachel Francis, One Pump Court and former co-chair of Young Legal Aid Lawyers; Oliver Carter, Irwin Mitchell and former co-chair of Young Legal Aid Lawyers

By 11 July 2019

Milbank, Latham, Skadden Advise on $8.6B Casino Mega-Merger

Eldorado Resorts and Caesars Entertainment Corp. are betting big that a merger between the two gaming giants will lead to a heater for shareholders. The new combined entity will retain the “Caesars” name and operate 60 gaming facilities across 16 U.S. states.

In a deal announced Monday morning, Eldorado will take control of all of Caesars’ outstanding shares at $12.75 per share, with a total purchase price of $8.58 billion in cash and stock and a total consideration of $17.3 billion, including debt. Eldorado shareholders will maintain 51% of the company’s outstanding shares, while Caesar’s investors will hold the remaining 49%.

Milbank, Tweed, Hadley & McCloy and Latham & Watkins are representing Eldorado on the deal. Milbank has represented both companies in the past, including handling an $18 billion debt restructuring for a Caesars subsidiary and advising Eldorado on a 2018 deal with William Hill PLC to act as the company’s exclusive sports betting operator.

Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom is advising Caesars in the Eldorado acquisition. The firm has a long history with Caesars, including when the gaming company sold four casino properties for $2.2 billion in 2014, as well as on its sale to Harrah’s for $9.4 billion in 2004.

Caesars, which emerged from bankruptcy in 2017, operates 34 properties in nine states and has $8.79 billion in long-term debt as of March 31. Eldorado, on the other hand, has a market value of about $4 billion and long-term debt of $3.06 billion as of the end of the first quarter. It operates 26 properties in 12 U.S. states.

Caesars has been a financial boon for several major law firms over the years. Its 2015 Chapter 11, from which the company emerged in 2017, helped generate fees of over $70 million for Kirkland & Ellis, $29 million for Proskauer Rose and $25 million for Jones Day.

Tom Reeg, CEO of Eldorado, said in a statement that “Eldorado’s combination with Caesars will create the largest owner and operator of U.S. gaming assets and is a strategically, financially and operationally compelling opportunity that brings immediate and long-term value to stakeholders of both companies.”

The deal team for Milbank was led by corporate M&A partner Deborah Conrad, tax partners Russell Kestenbaum and Max Goodman and executive compensation and employee benefits partner Mike Shah.

Latham fielded a team led by San Diego-based Sony Ben-Moshe. Moshe is a co-chair of the firm’s gaming and hospitality practice.

The Skadden team was led by M&A partners Andrew Garelick, Brian McCarthy and Richard Grossman, banking partner K. Kristine Dunn, capital markets partner Michelle Gasaway antitrust/competition partner Kenneth Schwartz, tax partner Kenneth Betts, labor and employment law partner Karen Corman, executive compensation and benefits partner Joseph Yaffe, intellectual property and technology partner Bruce Goldner, litigation partner Edward Micheletti and real estate partner Meryl Chae.