Posts

CCWC and Hogan Lovells: Our Shared Vision

As part of our commitment to being a leader in diversity and inclusion, we are proud to announce the beginning of a partnership between Hogan Lovells and Corporate Counsel Women of Color (CCWC).

The nonprofit organization provides a support network to in-house women of color attorneys, promotes career advancement and success at all levels within corporations, and promotes all aspects of global diversity in the legal profession and workplace. We look forward to working with CCWC as part of our shared vision to support the leadership and professional development of women of color in the legal industry.

Please watch the video below to learn more about this partnership.

COVID-19: managing the risk of contamination in the workplace

While the World Health Organisation has just declared the COVID-19 epidemic a “pandemic”, with the virus had reached nearly 130,000 people since December 2019, managing the risk of the virus spreading in the workplace has become a major issue for every employer. Following the announcement of multiple cases in Luxembourg and the decision of one Luxembourg bank to require employees to take holiday leave in the event of contamination, it seems more important than ever to remind ourselves of the rights and obligations of employers in the current scenario.

What are the employers’ obligations?

According to the Luxembourg Labour Code, employers have a legal obligation to ensure the safety and health of their employees in all work-related aspects. More particularly, as part of their responsibilities, employers shall take all necessary measures for the protection of the safety and health of employees, including actions for prevention of occupational hazards, information and training, as well as the establishment of the necessary organisational means. In general, employers must avoid risks and take precautions against possible risk factors, plan risk prevention and eliminate hazards or, at least, reduce them as much as possible.
In concrete terms, employers must take all the necessary preventive measures to protect employees and prevent the spread of the virus, such as:

  • display pictograms in the premises explaining basic hygiene procedures (e.g. regular hand washing, avoiding physical contact, avoiding travel in high-risk areas, sneeze or cough into a tissue );
  • reinforce hygiene measures (provision of masks, soaps and alcohol-based solutions for hand disinfection, etc.);
  • encourage teleworking where possible;
  • limit employees’ business travel and use alternatives solutions such as video-conference, phone calls, etc.;
  • postpone organized social events;
  • inform employees about the evolution of the situation in Luxembourg;
  • etc.

The means put in place by the employer should thus be aimed at (i) researching the virus’ origins and (ii) containing and delaying its spread.
In any case, employers shall keep themselves informed of the official recommendations published by the Ministry of Health, and liaise with their occupational health service in case of doubt.

Can an employee refuse to work or to carry out an assignment for safety reasons?

The Labour Code provides that in the event of serious, immediate and unavoidable danger, an employee can choose to leave or refuse to go to his/her workplace. There is no specific procedure to follow: it is sufficient for the employee to inform his/her employer orally or, preferably, in writing. In such event, the employee shall not suffer any harm/be subject to any sanction. A dismissal in violation of this prohibition of sanctions would be automatically deemed abusive.
If the employer has not taken the necessary steps to isolate employees exposed to the virus, an employee may, therefore, exercise his/her withdrawal right, either because he/she has been in a risk area or because he/she has been in contact with a colleague who has been in a risk area. Similarly, if the employer does not offer repatriation to an employee working in a risk area, the employee can again exercise his/her right to withdraw by ending the assignment. This right may also be exercised by an employee in the event that his/her employer asks him/her to go to a risk zone for an assignment.
As mentioned above, the employee’s withdrawal right can only be exercised in the event of serious, immediate and unavoidable danger. Consequently, an employee cannot refuse to attend work simply for fear of the COVID-19; similarly, an employee cannot refuse a business trip to an area that is not considered to be at risk. In such circumstances, the employee’s refusal could be subject to disciplinary action up to, and including dismissal.

Can the employer refuse to approve vacation for an employee who intends to privately go to areas at risk of COVID-19?

Under Luxembourg law, the employer may only refuse to grant leave in limited cases:

  • for operational purposes;
  • because of the justified wishes of other employees;
  • because of the employee’s unjustified absences, when they exceed 10% of the time during which he/she would normally have been required to work.
  • Luxembourg law does not allow the employer to deny leave to an employee for health and safety reasons. In any case, the employer cannot interfere in the private life of its employees.

In accordance with its obligation to ensure safety and health in all work-related aspects, the employer may, at most, recommend to the employee not to travel to the specific place. If the employee nevertheless travels to a high-risk area, the employee may be refused access to the workplace if the health and safety of others employees are seriously at risk, and in order to avoid spreading the virus in the company.

Does the employee have an obligation to inform the employer of possible exposure to the virus?

The Labour Code provides that it is the responsibility of each employee to take care, according to his/her possibilities, of his/her own safety and health and that of other persons affected by his/her acts or omissions at work, in accordance with his/her training and the instructions of the employer. In particular, employees must immediately report to the employer and/or the designated employees and the safety and health representatives, any work situation which they have reasonable cause to believe presents a serious and immediate danger to safety and health, as well as any deficiencies found in the protection system.
In light of the above, and on the basis of the principles of good faith and loyalty inherent in all employment relationships, employees should, therefore, inform their employer of any possible exposure to the virus (e.g. travel to an affected area, contact with a person returning from an affected region, etc.) so that the employer can take all the necessary measures in accordance with its obligation to ensure safety and health at work.

What can the employer do in case an employee is showing symptoms or is coming back from a high-risk area?

First of all, as the employer is responsible for ensuring safety and health in the workplace, and pursuant to the Labour Code, the employer may request employees showing symptoms or coming back from a high-risk area to perform a medical examination in order to ensure that the employee is fit for work. Such medical examination should be carried out by an occupational doctor of the company and at the employer’s expense, and may only be requested if the employer has serious indications of the existence of a risk for safety and health at work.
Where the health and safety of other employees are at stake, the employer may also refuse employee access to the workplace. However, the risk justifying the refusal of access to the workplace must be serious and justified; otherwise, the refusal of the employer could be regarded as discrimination.
Finally, the employer may encourage the implementation of telework for employees whose nature of work allows it, in order to avoid any risk of infection or spread of the virus.
According to the Ministry of Economy, employers could even impose telework in a preventive manner. The employer and the employee would then have to enter into an amendment to the employment contract, allowing the use of telework for reasons objectively motivated by precautionary measures in the context of the fight against COVID-19.
In any case, the employer shall cover the costs directly linked to telework, especially costs in relation to telecommunication. The employer shall also provide their teleworkers with appropriate technical support and is responsible for any cost related to the damage or loss of equipment and data used by the teleworker.
Where the nature of the employee’s job does not allow telework, the employer may exempt the employee from work where there is a risk for health and safety in the workplace.
In any case, the employer shall continue to pay its employees’ salaries. In addition, the employer may, under no circumstances, require the employee to stay at home by taking days off.

How to deal with a sick employee or with an employee stuck abroad due to restriction measures?

In case of sickness or quarantine instructed by a doctor, the employee will receive a medical certificate and the absence will be treated as normal sickness absence (i.e. cost is either borne by the employer or social security depending on whether the 77-day threshold has been reached).
However, if an employee is absent and stuck abroad due to restrictive measures implemented in connection with the prevention of the spread of COVID-19 (e.g. quarantine on a cruise ship, cancellation of flights, etc.), and if the employee is not sick, this absence will not be treated as normal sickness absence.
In such a situation, the employer and the employee may agree that the employee will work remotely, if practically possible. In this case, the employer must continue to pay the salary of the employee.
In any case, absences due to cases of “force majeure” or causes beyond the employee’s control, which have made it impossible for the employee to request prior authorisation, shall not be considered as unjustified absences and shall be assimilated to actual working days. In this respect, the employer shall continue to pay the employee’s salary.
However, if an employee is stuck abroad following his decision to go to a high-risk area despite his employer’s warnings, it could then be considered that there is an impossible performance of the employment contract due to the employee’s gross negligence and that in this case the employer could be justified in not paying the employee’s salary.

Should the employer grant an employee’s request to telework in order to care for children who are temporarily not allowed to attend their school?

An employer has no legal obligation to accept a telework request. Should the child of an employee be infected with COVID-19, placed in quarantine or temporarily unable to attend school, the employee will have to apply for leave.
However, where the child of an employee has potentially been in contact with a person who may be infected with the virus or who has stayed in a risk area, it is in the employer’s interest to permit teleworking as a preventive measure.
draft Grand-Ducal regulation has recently been adopted, providing for the possibility of a right to family leave for parents whose children have been placed in quarantine by the doctor of the Health Directorate, in particular in order to limit the spread of infectious diseases and more specifically of the COVID-19.

How can redundancies be avoided in the event of a decline in the activity of the business due to the propagation of the COVID-19?

In order to protect jobs and prevent redundancies, the Labour Code allows businesses, under certain conditions, to resort to various short-time working schemes depending on the nature of the difficulties encountered.
In this respect, the Labour Code provides that in the event of partial or total interruption of the operation of the undertaking due to losses of a “force majeure” nature occurring independently of the will of the employer and the employees, a subsidy may be granted to the employer who, instead of proceeding to dismissals, undertakes to maintain the employment contracts of its employees and to pay them a compensatory wage allowance.
In the event of an agreement, the Employment Fund (Fonds pour l’emploi) covers 80 % of the salaries normally received by the employees (which is capped at 250 % of the minimum wage for an unskilled worker) during the non-work periods with a maximum of 1.022 hours per employee and per year.
The Luxembourg authorities have recently recognized that this short-time working scheme in cases of “force majeure” may apply in principle to all economic sectors as long as the causes invoked are directly related to COVID-19 (e.g. drop in demand from customers or users, employees absences due to external decisions, the company can no longer operate at normal speed, etc.).

White & Case LLP Careers: Together we make a mark

Montreal

White & Case Advises Hg on Investment in Medical Systems

Global law firm White & Case has advised Hg, the specialist private equity investor focused on software and service businesses, on its agreement for an investment in Intelerad Medical Systems, a leading global provider of medical imaging software and enterprise workflow solutions.

Founded in 1999, Intelerad specializes in diagnostic viewing, reporting and collaboration solutions for radiologists. Headquartered in Montreal, Intelerad serves more than 300 healthcare organizations around the world, including radiology groups, imaging centers, clinics and reading groups, and has a strong and growing presence in hospital imaging departments.

Healthcare technology is a core sector for Hg, and Intelerad represents the fifth healthcare technology investment in Hg’s current portfolio.

The transaction is expected to close in the first quarter of 2020, following satisfaction of customary regulatory approvals.

The White & Case team was led by partner Oliver Brahmst and included partners Frank Lupinacci, Sang Ji, Steven Lutt, Tal Marnin and Arlene Arin Hahn, and associates Adam Plotkin, Jordan Kobb, Brian Fetterolf, Daniel Kozin, Brandon Dubov, Arian Mossanenzadeh, Harry Hudesman, Neeraj Shah, Caroline Cima, Julianne Prisco and Mark Kim (all in New York); partners Rebecca Farrington and Farhad Jalinous, counsel Paul Pittman and Keith Schomig, and associates Ajita Shukla and Daniel Rosenthal (all in Washington, DC); partner Jarlath McGurran and associate Mahir Maini (London); and partners Nirangjan Nagarajah and Michelle Keen, counsel Andrea Reeves, and associate Tiffany Leach (all in Melbourne).

Enforcement of Foreign Judgments in India

Enforcement of Foreign Judgments in India – Inclusion of UAE as a Reciprocating Territory

The Ministry of Law and Justice, Government of India vide its Notification dated January 17, 2020 (“Notification”) declared United Arab Emirates (“UAE”) a “reciprocating territory” for the purposes of enforcing foreign civil decrees in India. The declaration has been made by the Indian government in exercise of powers under Explanation 1 appended to Section 44A, Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (“CPC”). Pursuant to the Notification, decrees passed by the courts in UAE are now executable in India as if they were passed in India.

CPC lays down the procedure for enforcement of foreign judgments and decrees in India. A foreign judgment is a judgment of a foreign court and a foreign court means a court situated outside India and not established or continued by the authority of the Central Government. A foreign judgment needs to be conclusive for it to be enforceable in India. The test of conclusiveness of a foreign judgment is provided under Section 13 of CPC, which postulates that a foreign judgment shall be conclusive unless:

  1. It has not been pronounced by a court of competent jurisdiction;
  2. It has not been given on the merits of the case;
  3. It appears, on the face of the proceedings, to be founded on an incorrect view of international law or a refusal to recognize the law of India in cases in which such law is applicable;
  4. The proceedings in which the judgment was obtained are opposed to natural justice;
  5. It has been obtained by fraud;

f)    It sustains a claim founded on a breach of any law in force in India.

Broadly, a foreign judgment in India can be enforced in the following ways:

  1. Decrees passed by courts in reciprocating territories: Reciprocating territories enjoy the privilege of direct enforcement of a decree within the territory of India by filing execution proceedings of the decree before an Indian court. A reciprocating territory is any country or territory outside India which the Central Government may, by notification in the official gazette, declare to be a reciprocating territory and the superior courts with reference to any such territory, are the courts as may be specified in the notification notified by the Government. In accordance with the CPC, if a certified copy of the decree of any of the superior courts of any reciprocating territory is filed in a district court, the decree may be executed in India as if it has been passed by the district court. Such foreign judgment to be executable in India must be conclusive (i.e., should not be falling under any of the above stated six categories) and needs to comply with the laws of limitation of India. Also, the decree with reference to a superior court would be any decree or judgment of such court under which a sum of money is payable, not being a sum payable in respect of taxes or in respect of a fine or other penalties, but shall in no case include an arbitral award, even if such an award is enforceable as a decree or judgment.

Some of the countries that have been declared to be “reciprocating territories” are United Kingdom, Singapore, Bangladesh, Malaysia, Trinidad & Tobago, New Zealand, Hong Kong, Papua New Guinea, Fiji, etc.

  1. Judgments passed by non-reciprocating territories: Such judgments can be enforced only by first preferring a lawsuit in an Indian court for a judgment based on the foreign judgment and second, filing for execution proceedings after obtaining the Indian decree. Section 14 of the CPC provides for presumption, albeit a rebuttable one, in favour of the foreign judgment being one passed by a court of competent jurisdiction. For the purposes of Indian courts, such foreign judgment is of evidentiary value only.

Considering that the decrees from reciprocating territories are directly enforceable in India, the inclusion of UAE as a “reciprocating territory” will be beneficial for a UAE decree-holder to enforce the decreed time and cost-efficiently in India. The courts in UAE which will be considered as the superior courts of UAE for the purposes of section 44A of CPC are the Federal Supreme Court; Federal, the First Instance and Appeals Courts in the Emirates of Abu Dhabi, Sharjah, Ajman, Umm Al Quwain and Fujairah; and local courts in Abu Dhabi Judicial Department, Dubai, Ras Al Khaimah Judicial Department, Abu Dhabi Global Markets and Dubai International Financial Center.

It further implies that Indian expatriates in UAE would no longer be able to seek safe haven in their home country if they have a decree against them in a civil case in the UAE. It would also be interesting to see how this development will impact the proceedings under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 were so far the National Company Law Tribunal (“NCLT”, in the matter of M/s Stanbic Bank Ghana Limited v. M/s Rajkumar Impex Private Limited CP/670/IB/2017), has held that NCLT has no jurisdiction to enforce foreign decree, however, there is no bar in it taking cognizance of the foreign decree. The Notification, however, will have no impact upon enforcement of arbitral awards passed by arbitral tribunals seated in UAE as the scope of Notification is strictly limited to decrees covered under section 44A of CPC.

LDN PHOTO

Working at Baker McKenzie

We are different from other law firms in the way we think, work and behave. Global in our outlook from the beginning, for six consecutive years we have been named as the world’s strongest law firm brand by Acritas, underlining our dedication to being the best. We know the value of our talent in sustaining this success and so we’re committed to offering the platform to nurture this talent.

Koen De Puydt

News Article by Leaders in Law Member – Koen De Puydt

Professional Liability of Intellectual professions in the Construction Sector 

Following the ten-year liability insurance for real estate projects for architects, engineering firms and contractors, which was made mandatory by the “Peeters-Borsus Law” since 1 July 2018, another insurance obligation has been introduced within the construction sector by the “Peeters-Ducarme Law” effective 1 July 2019. 

The title of this law is self-explanatory. It introduces “a professional liability insurance for architects, surveyor experts, safety and health coordinators and other service providers in the construction sector relating to construction works and amends various legal provisions regarding civil liability insurance in the construction sector”, as mentioned earlier also called the Peeters-Ducarme Law. 

peeters-law_buildings_2.jpg

This title shows that this law has in principle a larger scope than the Peeters-Borsus Law. Where the latter applies primarily to contractors and architects in the context of housing projects and for works that require the intervention of an architect, the Peeters-Ducarme Law introduces a professional liability insurance for all intellectual professions within the construction sector, with regard to all construction work. 

Consequently, the Peeters-Ducarme Law does not apply to contractors, but it applies to all kind of real estate work (and therefore not only with regard to housing projects). Thus, as a result of the execution of all real estate works, the principal will enjoy this protection regardless of the final destination of the property or the possible intervention of an architect. 

Compulsory insurance coverage cannot be lower, per claim, than:

  • € 1,500,000 for damage resulting from physical injuries;
  • € 500,000 for the total material and immaterial damage;
  • € 10,000 for the objects entrusted to the insured by the principal.

The law also provides for a posterior coverage on the basis of which the liability for claims must be covered if the claim is filed within three years after the cessation of the activities of the insured service provider . 

Although it could be expected that the Peeters-Ducarme Law has a larger scope than the Peeters-Borsus Law, we must conclude that it is largely eroded by the exceptions that are provided for in respect of the damage that the insurance must cover. 

For example, Article 5 of the Peeters-Ducarme Law states that damages are not covered if it is the consequence of a failure to comply with one or more contractual obligations or if damages resulting from environmental degradation, claims relating to an inadequate budget, or disputes in relation to fees and expenses.

These exceptions erode the potentially extensive coverage provided by the Peeters-Ducarme Law significantly and therefore the latter offers less protection than might be expected at first sight. 

The Peeters-Ducarme law has been published yesterday (26 June 2019) in the Belgian Official Gazette and will enter into force on 1 July 2019. 

Peeters Law (to be soon Seeds of Law) will be happy to provide you with the necessary advice or assistance in this matter. Please contact us via info@seeds.law or by telephone on +32 (0)2 747 40 07.

Koen De Puydt – Toon Delie

Real Estate and Construction Law    Professional Liability     Professional Liability insurance     Intellectual professions     construction sector     architect surveyor expert    safety and health coordinator

Simon Steel

LCF Law Firm Celebrates Domains 21st Anniversary

A leading Yorkshire law firm’s domain name is celebrating its 21st anniversary, making it one of the oldest legal domains in the region and reinforcing the importance of trade marking to protect company names, domains and brands.

LCF Law initially registered www.lcf.co.uk in the summer of 1998, which was two months before www.google.co.uk was registered and the search engine giant was born. It would also be another seven to 10 years before iconic domain names such as YouTube, Twitter and Facebook arrived on the scene.
Simon Stell, Managing Partner at LCF Law, said: “In 1998 the internet was in its infancy, you needed a modem to connect to it and lots of patience! However as a forwarding thinking business, we could immediately see its potential and how it was going to be transformational for our industry. We started exploring how to capitalise on the online world and launched a website. We had to buy a domain name, so we went for www.lcf.co.uk because it was distinctive, straightforward and easy to remember.

“At the time, some people suggested that creating a website for a law firm was frivolous and insignificant. However, we were ahead of the curve, as very few regional or national legal firms took the initiative that early on. It quickly became one of our best ever investments and has attracted millions of visitors over the years, doing a great job to illustrate LCF Law’s foresight and innovative approach to exploring new technologies.”

Simon added: “Another thing that became apparent early on was how important it is to trade mark both company names and domain names, because it can be easy for unscrupulous operators to impersonate companies or brands using the internet. They can register a similar domain and create a genuine looking website to divert users away from the site they were aiming for and there are lots of examples of this happening.”

Abid Perwaze, Commercial & Intellectual Property Solicitor at LCF Law, added: “Having the right trade marks in place makes it much easier to stop anyone that tries to do this and also helps to protect company names and brands. There’s a common misconception that it costs thousands of pounds to create a trade mark, but in most cases it can be done for just a few hundred pounds.”

 

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.

KPMG legal consultancy arm coming to UK

PMG is to set up a legal consultancy arm in the UK, the ‘Big Four’ professional services firm revealed, as it reported strong growth in its global legal services business.

The legal consultancy is expected to launch in the next few months, though the firm has not yet disclosed further details.

This is but the latest signal of intent from the ‘Big Four’ and follows last month’s news that rival firm Deloitte has hired a former magic circle partner to lead its UK legal arm.

KPMG’s UK consulting arm will be part of the Legal Operations & Transformation Services (LOTS) offering, which KPMG says helps in-house counsel identify ‘technologies, flexible resources and managed services that can support delivery of legal services’.

In a separate announcement this morningm, KPMG said ‘rising demands’ for legal services had resulted in revenue growth for its global legal services arm of more than 30%. The practice now has more than 2,300 legal professionals worldwide, including more than 20 new partners added during 2018, it added.

Jürg Birri, KPMG’s global head of legal services, said: ‘Our approach is different. We’re not a traditional law firm, and we’re not copying the approach of a traditional law firm. We focus on offering our clients integrated legal advice and technology-led solutions and methodologies, in combination with a range of alternative legal managed services.’

He added: ‘We expect continued growth in 2019 as we eagerly meet the evolving needs of clients across the globe. Increasingly, our clients are being asked to implement business transformation programmes that need an integrated approach that combines business and legal methodologies, not just pure legal advice. We understand this and are able to deliver.’

In January, the Gazette reported on the opening of a KPMG affiliated legal practice in Hong Kong. An associated Shanghai office is expected to follow later this year.