Episodes

  • Judge Rob Rinder and Jeremy Brier on the Importance of Legal Aid

    Judge Rob Rinder and Jeremy Brier on the Importance of Legal Aid
    Dec 14 2021
    Jeremy is a leading Senior Junior at the Commercial Bar and is a member of Essex Court Chambers. He specialises in complex and heavy commercial litigation, including insurance, banking and funds, all aspects of commercial fraud, shipping, and international arbitration. In 2020, Jeremy was the lead Junior for Arch in Financial Conduct Authority v Arch, the test case on business interruption losses resulting from the Covid-19 pandemic. Since 2018, he has also sat as a Recorder of the Crown Court.Rob was called to the Bar in 2001 and went on to specialise in cases involving international fraud, money laundering and other forms of financial crime. Since 2014, he has been the eponymous judge in the reality courtroom series Judge Rinder and has also written a legal based discussion column in The Sun. He also came fifth in the fourteenth series of Strictly Come Dancing.Jeremy and Rob's experiences as judgesFrom a young age, Jeremy had always wanted to be a criminal barrister, and when he’d accrued enough experience as a commercial barrister, he applied, and was appointed, as a part-time judge - known as a recorder. “And then you learn on the job. You get training, you do get very good training, actually. But you also have to go and do a lot of sitting in with all the judges, quite a lot of observing and watching.”While you don't always see the impact the criminal Legal Aid cuts are having on the front line in the court, says Jeremy, what is being seen is a rise in the number of people who are representing themselves. The issue with this is they simply don’t understand the law procedure in the way that trained counsel do.The importance of Legal Aid Legal Aid, says Jeremy, has always been a problematic area for the government. They haven’t been able to sell it to the public because people tend to see it as footing the bill for criminals. But Legal Aid isn’t just for crime. It’s vital in areas like immigration and asylum cases. “Legal Aid is actually incredibly important, indeed, fundamental to a democratic and functioning legal system under the rule of law.”When the Legal Aid and Advice Act came in 1949, about 80% of the country was covered. That has subsequently dropped to about 27% of people who were eligible by 2007. And now, under the latest reforms, there are only very small numbers of specific cases that can get funding. But, says Rob, Legal Aid represents everything. “It's about access to justice, without access to justice, there is no rule of law. And without the rule of law, our democracy is meaningless, simple as. But what governments have failed to do, or even us as lawyers, is to personalise it to give really good quality examples of how critical and how important it is, and to make it relevant to individuals.”And Rob has had significant first hand experience of people who desperately need Legal Aid, but for whom access to justice is completely beyond their grasp. The problem, says Rob, is that one - we have access to legal advice because we have money to pay for it as well the connections to help. Two -  we can speak to power without fear. And three - we have the capacity and the resources to ensure that the law is executed on our behalf. That in itself is a privilege. “And for millions of our neighbours, even in the communities we all live in. That's just not part of their reach. And when we sit back and reflect on who we are as a nation, that's not just a problem. It says something deeply worrying about our nation.”The misunderstanding of Legal Aid“I think one of the reasons, historically, is that for some reason, Legal Aid has been synonymous in the public mind, whether through the reporting of it or otherwise, as being some sort of fund for criminals.”There’s a misunderstanding that what's happening is that all of these undeserving murderers, rapists, and thieves are somehow dipping into the public purse to employ clever barristers to get them off crimes. And that couldn't be further from the truth. First of all, says Jeremy, an incredible number of people are innocent of the crimes or wrongdoings they’re accused of. And that's possibly the most important protection of liberty we have as a civilised society - to give innocent people the right to defend themselves. But also, everyone is entitled to a defence. And that is a fundamental right, just like access to the NHS or the education system.How to improve the image of Legal AidCameras in court would in no way shape or form help the public understand the significance of Legal Aid, says Rob. “Look, we're lawyers and we know something which the public doesn't, which is most court cases, even criminal ones are incredibly boring.”What we need to do, Rob continues, as a legal community, is think about ways to broaden our capacity and reach into communities that don’t have access to justice.“We need to think of more corporately creative ways about how we are privileged with time, to ensure that we ...
    Show more Show less
    44 mins
  • Clarissa Coleman & David Speakman of DAC Beachcroft On The Changing Role of Investigations Lawyers

    Clarissa Coleman & David Speakman of DAC Beachcroft On The Changing Role of Investigations Lawyers
    Nov 23 2021
    Clarissa Coleman moved straight into litigation on qualifying. As well as several other positions, she spent 2 years in-house as Head of Litigation at Consensus Business Group (CBG), the property investment firm owned by businessman Vincent Tchenguiz. Today she’s a partner in the Complex Commercial Litigation and Disputes group at DAC Beachcroft’s London office.“Litigation is different. It's a different mindset. It's about clients and people and every case is different. The facts are different, the stories are different. It's constantly challenging and different and exciting.”David Speakman is a senior employment law specialist based at DAC Beachcroft’s London office too. He has considerable experience advising on contentious matters before the Employment Tribunal and High Court, regularly advising on high-profile disputes and discrimination issues.The dawn raidDuring her 2 years as in-house as Head of Litigation at CBG, Clarissa dealt with multi-million pound commercial disputes and a high profile dawn raid and fraud investigation by the Serious Fraud Office, following the collapse of Kaupthing Bank in Iceland. “I dashed into the office. I'd done some dawn raid training. And, as expected, everyone totally ignored all my training. So I was the only one who followed my own training.”Clarissa co-ordinated the response on the morning of the dawn raid and arrest of Tchenguiz, and planned the subsequent judicial review against the SFO, which later dropped its investigation and settled with Tchenguiz for an undisclosed amount.Reputation managementAfter the raid, there were 1,350 negative press articles about Vincent and his brother, meaning PR was vital to him getting his message out there that he wasn’t in the wrong. “When we were planning our strategy, one of the biggest issues was an allegation of conspiracy between Vincent and his brother, because it's very hard to disprove allegations of conspiracy.”The SFO put their warrant together so quickly, it was full of mistakes and misinformation, and this was key to getting the press onside. “Bringing the press onside and working within the power of the press became an important part of our strategy and actually meant that the SFO had to drop all their charges.”WhistleblowingDavid was involved in a very high profile case himself, an employment whistleblower case. Dr Kevin Beatt was sacked by Croydon's NHS Trust for whistleblowing over concerns about patient safety. “I think it's a really important case about whistleblowing, clearly, because it went to the Court of Appeal and has now confirmed the law on whistleblowing. But I think it is really important as a tale to explain why an investigation into the underlying issues is vitally important.”Problems arise because so many people use whistleblowing as a way to raise a grievance or a difficulty, making it a very contentious and complicated area. Wider cultural influences on the UK workforceThe workplace isn’t just somewhere you work, it can be extended to any time, anywhere you’re with work colleagues, even in a social context. When you’re with work colleagues, there’s a certain standard of behaviour that just isn’t acceptable. Employment law supports this and sees the workplace as being far wider than just the office.“The #metoo social media phenomena means that people feel empowered to speak out. Whereas 20 years ago, people felt they couldn't speak out, because they would have been blacklisted for their career.”DAC Beachcroft multi-disciplinary investigations department“We realised as a firm, that we've got a huge amount of investigators experience and a huge amount of litigation experience, but also that that experience is in a lot of cases, quite specific, as well as generic.”Their team is currently speaking to schools, to independent schools, universities, and carrying out investigations into sexual misconduct in schools. “We take a strategic approach. It's a bit like the Vincent story again. You don't just follow a path, at the very start, you take all the expertise you have as a firm and look at this question and say, ‘What is the best way to approach it?’ ‘Who has the real skills that can deal with this?’ ‘Can we think outside the box a little so that we can provide solutions?’”Discussed in this podcast episode:The dawn raid Reputation managementThink about privilege from the outsetWhistleblowingThe FCA’s 6th question on D&ICareer advice for new lawyersLinksClarissa ColemanDavid SpeakmanDAC Beachcroft LLPhttps://montfort.london/https://montfort.london/our-team/
    Show more Show less
    28 mins
  • Tracy Alexander on the Current State of UK Forensic Services

    Tracy Alexander on the Current State of UK Forensic Services
    Sep 29 2021
    Tracy Alexander is the Director of Forensic Services for the City of London police. Tracy has worked in forensic science for 29 years, 17 years of which were spent within the Directorate of Forensic Services at New Scotland Yard, as Crime Scene Manager for the Homicide Command, and latterly as Head of Forensic Intelligence. Tracy is an advisory panel member and trustee of Inside Justice, a fellow of King's College London, and the current president of the British Academy of Forensic Sciences. From classics to forensicsTracy fell into forensics entirely by accident when she saw an advert at New Scotland Yard looking for people interested in becoming fingerprint experts. “I thought, that sounds good. And my parents would be so proud. Essentially, at that time forensic science consisted mostly, if you're thinking about biometric data, it was entirely around fingerprints.”The biggest changes in forensicsThe biggest change came in 1995 with the instigation of the DNA database. “The concept of being able to use that kind of biometric data in order to identify somebody at a crime scene was, I mean I hate the phrase, but it was a complete game changer.”The idea of being able to identify an individual by something unique to them, i.e. a fingerprint, had been around since 1897 when it was first used in Argentina, but the introduction of the DNA database meant identifying a person, and having their name available as part of an investigation for intelligence, or as part of a trial. About 10% of the UK population is on the DNA and fingerprint database, the biggest per capita database in the world. But has it had an impact on how crimes are investigated or how forensic services are run in the UK?“I love my police investigative colleagues to death, but they do rely on there being forensic leads a lot. And I know in other countries they don't, they're expected to pursue all leads, do your house to house inquiries, pursue the CCTV and all of the other things that you would normally do.”While that’s not necessarily a bad thing, says Tracy, forensic services in the UK were privatised a long time ago, and that in itself has influenced how the work is carried out. Because it’s now a case of doing how much you can afford to. The decline of forensic expertsIn 2012 when the coalition government closed the UK Forensic Science Service (FSS), one of the biggest impacts in the forensic science space was the reduction in the number of different experts that were available to police forces across the UK. “There are fibre experts in the UK, but they don't work for a company because companies won't pay to have them on the books.”The portrayal of forensic scientists by hit tv shows like Line of Duty are hugely misleading, because you simply can’t pop to the nearest lab and have a bit of rope examined, for example. TV portrayal of forensic scientistsWhile some TV shows are inaccurate about what forensic science is capable of, Tracy did learn from Rizzoli and Isles, an American forensic science show, that you can age blood. She’s also a fan of Amanda Burton in Silent Witness, although she says, as a forensic scientist, you simply can’t do all the work she does. “Amanda Burton can talk to the witnesses, she can comfort the victim's family, she can do the post mortem, she can examine the scene. [But] it's one of those unattainable things, you can't do all of those bits and bobs in just one hour all by yourself.” Investigating digital and cybercrimeIn Tracy’s current role, she’s involved in investigating digital and cybercrime, which she says, isn’t complicated by the complexities of the data, more so, it’s the sheer volume of data they have to deal with that slows them down. And there’s no budget to use machine learning, or AI, or any new technologies to wade through the massive volumes of data to uncover patterns or read through key documents. They can’t even hire more people. “We do an awful lot with what we've got. I turn out 30 terabytes of data a month. All of that data is actively used in prosecutions every single day. We're juggling tonnes of data in order to make sure that people are being prosecuted as best they can, on a daily basis. But it's not enough.”Inside JusticeTracy also sits on the advisory panel for the charity, Inside Justice, which investigates miscarriages of justice. “The joy of forensic science is that it does give you the truth of the matter. We shouldn't be an expert witness on one side or the other. It should just be looking at the evidence. And see where it leads you.”Tracy’s Montfort MaximWhat advice does Tracy give to anyone interested in embarking on a career in forensic science?“I would definitely work on a prime science. Pick a specialism and be very, very good at that. And then potentially go and work somewhere else, maybe in the Netherlands, because they all speak English, and it's all government funded. Really learn your trade and then ...
    Show more Show less
    33 mins
  • Jasper Helder on Navigating the Enterprise Act 2002 and the National Security and Investment Act 2021

    Jasper Helder on Navigating the Enterprise Act 2002 and the National Security and Investment Act 2021
    Sep 9 2021
    Jasper Helder is a senior partner at Akin Gump, and one of the most experienced and well named professionals advising on national security, trade policy and export controls issues in the country. In light of a number of recent controversies around the takeover of British companies, Jasper joined Kiran to discuss the 2002 Enterprise Act, and the forthcoming National Security and Investment Act, which is coming into force in January 2022.What the Enterprise Act 2002 was meant to doIn 2018, merger controls were put in place to try and clarify the Enterprise Act 2002, because it was felt that the government didn't have any intervening powers in such transactions that might be relevant for national security. “Now, the biggest debate around all of this is going to be, well, what actually is national security?”For Jasper, this is fairly intuitive - key suppliers to the MOD, technology, energy etc, however the nuance now is because national security is starting to move away from just these things, as geopolitics shift. The problem with the merging control thresholdsThe problem with the introduction of these merging control thresholds is that people are concerned that by giving so much discretionary authority to the government, it might discourage investors from investing in the UK. You’ve also got to really understand the industry sectors you’re trying to define, says Jasper. For example, in July 2020, artificial intelligence, cryptographic authentication technology and advanced materials were three areas the government has said they want to focus their attention on. “But it's not industry sectors in their entirety, it's actually very well defined concise portions of specific technology that the government is zooming in on.”National pride versus national security“I don't think it's necessarily about national pride, I think it's more about wanting to have our own sovereign capability to manufacture things, or develop technologies without being reliant on anyone else.”Just look at the relationship between the UK and the EU, it’s never been so fraught. And if we were dependent on products or services exclusively generated in another country, that creates a dependency which could be a national security risk.National Security and Investment Act The key difference, says Jasper, between the Enterprise Act and the National Security Investment Act is the catchment area under the latter is much broader. But, he continues, we will see examples in future deals where it's not necessarily dependency on key technology for the UK Government, or key sectors of the economy, that becomes relevant from a national security consideration, more it’s about retaining that technology in the UK.“The National Security Investment Act allows a much broader range of national security topics to be brought in. I think we're going to see some interesting political debate.”How to mitigate national security concernsIf there’s one thing English lawmakers are good at, says Jasper, it’s being creative with the law. “There's lots of things you can do to mitigate national security concerns. You can ring fence certain technology… when it comes to personal data of UK citizens, you could ring fence that…  it's not a black or white zero sum game.”And for outside investors wanting to invest in a UK company, Jasper advises they first identify potential national security concerns up front. Then they need to be able to communicate their intentions with the deal, with their investment, effectively to the government to address those concerns.“You need to have lawyers who understand the regulations, the process. You also need people with a background in administration who understand how decision making in this area works. And you need to have communication experts that can help you to get the right message across to the right people at the right time.”Make your plan upfront, says Jasper, don’t plan as you’re going through the process. Jasper’s Montfort MaximWhat would Jasper’s advice be for a client who may be about to become involved in a transaction that would involve the Enterprise Act, or the National Security Investment Act?“I would say step outside yourself, your own ideas, conceptions about your deal, and put yourself in the government's shoes. And then try to look at your contemplated deal objectively… and consider whether you think this transaction would warrant a calling or not.”Discussed in this podcast episode:What the Enterprise Act 2002 was meant to doThe merging control thresholdsNational pride versus national securityNational Security & Investment Act How to mitigate national security concernsLinkshttps://montfort.london/https://montfort.london/our-team/Jasper HelderJasper Helder Enterprise Act 2002National Security and Investment Act
    Show more Show less
    31 mins
  • Bringing Court Dress into the 21st Century

    Bringing Court Dress into the 21st Century
    Aug 25 2021
    Karlia Lykourgou is a barrister at Doughty Street Chambers. She was called to the bar in 2013 and specialises in criminal defence cases. However, in 2020, she founded Ivy & Normanton, the first legal outfitter specialising in legal attire for women. “The struggle that women experience is different to the struggle that men can experience in the same industry. And I want to celebrate our contribution and assist those who don't come from the backgrounds that are traditional to the bar, to feel welcome, to come and flourish in it.”Ivy & NormantonIvy & Normanton takes its name from Ivy Williams and Helena Normanton respectively, the first and second women to be called to the bar. But why do women need separate legal attire outfitters?In 2016 Karlia went shirt shopping and was confronted with a limited selection of legal shirts for women, compared to the rows of shirts for mens. “I just wanted to look as smart as they did, to feel as professional as they did when I was in court… I tried on a shirt, and it didn't fit like a woman's. It fitted like a school shirt, you know, straight down from the armpits, lots of volume.”And to add insult to injury, it was expensive. So she left the legal outfitters without a shirt, but with the idea to set up a legal outfitters specialising in court dress for women. “And that idea grew, the more time I spent in advocates’ rooms observing what the issues were with women's legal dress and simple things like having a collarette with velcro all the way up to the top meant that women's hair would often get caught in the velcro, it's very uncomfortable.”Launching“I didn't overthink it. I just knew it needed to be done. And I knew that when I started it, I would be very busy. I didn't appreciate the response I would receive when I launched and I was totally overwhelmed when we launched in June last year, and it just sort of blew up in an afternoon.”Their range is very customer-led, they listen to what female barristers want and they start to fill the gaps with what’s missing. “It's a very niche product, legal dress. We just want to make sure that we're providing what isn't there already, so that everyone can get on with the important job that they're doing. And no one has to feel excluded or uncomfortable or less than.”The importance of court wear“Legal dress serves a purpose in highlighting the formality of proceedings in a society that is increasingly casual. Having legal dress reminds us of how serious the issues we are discussing are.”Before Ivy & Normanton, there was court attire for women, but it wasn’t diverse and it wasn’t comfortable. With Ivy & Normanton, Karlia has enabled women to express themselves through their court clothing choices, and to do the job while dressed appropriately, and look better while they’re at it. “There's that old adage  - the clothes maketh the man. And when you feel good, when you look good, when you're comfortable, your mind isn't considering your discomfort, it is focusing on the things that are at hand.”Because if your brain is even 1% thinking about your attire, then it’s not doing the job it’s being paid to do, and that’s not fair of you, and it’s not fair of the client you’re representing. The other reason Karlia feels so strongly about court attire women is that you have to dress a certain way to sell yourself to your professional client. You want them to put trust in you, to have faith in you because you’re their voice in court. And when you don’t look the part, you’re starting from a disadvantage because people will make assumptions about you. “If you are looking ramshackle, if you look disorganised then it might lead your client or the jury to think that your arguments or that the rest of your case is going to be disorganised or unkempt as well.” Launching a hijab for female barristersIvy & Normanton have recently launched their court hijab. It’s made of sustainable bamboo silk so it's breathable, it's hypoallergenic. It's not too thick to make you hot, and it's not too thin so it doesn’t show your hair. Because it's bamboo silk, it's got a texture to it so it doesn't slide off your head either. You can tuck it in your collarette or over your collar or under your suit.“For us to put out a product that was really trying to help women express their religion and who they are in this very traditionally white male privileged industry, meant a lot to a lot of people.”Karlia wanted to portray real women and a diverse image of what it means to be a woman in law. “There's this image of what it is to be a barrister. You’re meant to be almost godlike, and always fearless and just always putting up with everything, and we are real people.”Karlia’s Montford MaximKarlia’s advice for any young women coming behind her to the bar: first of all, never be less than you are. Secondly, find someone or something that inspires you and carry it with you through difficult ...
    Show more Show less
    31 mins
  • Lord Bernard Hogan-Howe On Policing And The Media

    Lord Bernard Hogan-Howe On Policing And The Media
    Aug 9 2021
    Lord Bernard Hogan-Howe is the former Commissioner for the Metropolitan Police. Currently he’s an adviser to the Financial Crime department at city law firm Rosenblatt. What you might not know is that he has made an arrest at every single rank, has ridden a horse at the Grand National, and has ridden a police horse at every London football ground during his term.   The relationship between the police and the media Lord Hogan-Howe began his illustrious career with the South Yorkshire Police Force, joining them in the hunt for the notorious serial killer, Peter Sutcliffe. At the time, the entire country was captivated by ongoing events, but how important was the relationship between the police and the media during that hunt? “Vitally important, really, if you remember, there were 16 women who were murdered, and this went on over a period of years.” The police were overwhelmed by the amount of information they received, there were so many lines of inquiry. And the media were essential to providing this.  “In any inquiry, there's only three ways to detect crime, you either get forensics from the scene that matches the suspect, you catch them doing it, [or] someone tells you who did it. And by far, that's the most effective way. The press are vital in putting you in touch with the country. 60 odd million people who will help you solve the crime.” The evolving relationship At the time, there was suspicion on both sides that both parties were withholding information. And to some extent that was true. But in order to successfully investigate a case, people have to trust that information they share to the police isn’t going to be made public.  “There was a presumption [at that time] that the police wouldn't share any information with the press rather than the reverse. Now, on the whole, that presumption is reversed. The police will share as much as they can, unless there's a good reason not to.” There have been times since, when both sides have been deceived, when the press were too close to the police or vice versa, for both of them to do their job properly.  “The press need to be independent, and to hold the police to account. And the police might need to investigate journalists. There is always going to be a proper distance. However, broadly speaking, it is a far better place than it’s ever been.”  The rise in private prosecutions Private prosecutions, in particular in financial crime, have coincided with austerity. Economic crime is a difficult area to both investigate and prosecute because it plays on the fringes of criminal law.  “To prove that you've actually got a crime compared to a bad business deal, or a misunderstanding, or anything else can be quite difficult. When you've got multi jurisdictions, this means a huge amount of cost around investigations at a time.” This is where Rosenblatt’s specialisation in Private Prosecutions comes to the fore ensuring that victims of crime can get to trial. And with law enforcement agencies tied up with their priorities around violence, there’s only so many resources they can throw at it. Through gathering evidence, drafting witness statements and making sure the Defendant attends court to answer the charges, Rosenblatt ensures that it can effectively pursue the most intricate of cases. “One of the benefits of pursuing a private prosecution is that you do an awful lot of the legwork, and eventually an independent prosecutor may step in and take over.” Managing the narrative around the 2011 London riots In the days around the riots, the media narrative wasn’t good. But it was vital that the reputation of London and the UK came out unscathed. First the police had to calm things down, then take a look at the rioters involved and thirdly, make sure it didn’t happen again while projecting a positive image of London.  “In the succeeding 18 months, we had a team of 800 people who arrested 5500 rioters, 70% of who were charged, of which 90% pleaded guilty. 7 out of 10 of that group who were found guilty, were well known frequent offenders.” At the same time, the Metropolitan Police had to find £600 million of savings from a budget of £3.6 billion. And they did, while maintaining police officer numbers at 32,000.  “We tried to get over the explanation that we were effective at doing our job. We were efficient. We were doing more with less. And in fact, during that time, over the next four years, we reduced crime by about 20%, including lots of murders.” How to handle the media as a senior police officer Be open with the press, be straight with them, agree to disagree, don’t do subterfuge, don’t do any Machiavellian tactics, don’t hide things, explain things and do your best to improve things. Take criticism on the chin and accept you’re playing a big boy’s game, and never complain.  “Do your job. Just do your job, according to the law, do your job according to your best efforts. ...
    Show more Show less
    35 mins
  • David Marchant of OffshoreAlert On Life As An Investigative Journalist

    David Marchant of OffshoreAlert On Life As An Investigative Journalist
    Jul 26 2021
    David Marchant is an investigative journalist, the founder and editor of OffshoreAlert, the leading online news portal for insolvencies, disputes and other problems in high value cross border finance. He started his career working for the Gwent Gazette before leaving Britain for sunnier climes. “It was a great grounding as a young journalist. But within six years I was living in Bermuda, which had zero unemployment and was a microcosm of capitalism.”He initially took a job with the Royal Gazette daily newspaper, covering business. “And I knew nothing about business. I mean, nothing, right? I mean, much less the highly specialised international business that was conducted in Bermuda.”Getting kicked out of BermudaConcerned his career wasn’t going anywhere, David refocused his efforts on investigative journalism, and was kicked out of the country while writing about a $65 million fraud committed by the who’s who of Bermuda. “When I say kicked out, I was no longer able to have a work permit to continue living and working in Bermuda. I’m the only journalist that I'm aware of that has been denied that right.”It was then he launched OffshoreAlert. OffshoreAlertWhile David’s initial motivation may have been to prove to the Bermuda authorities that he would not be silenced, he became interested in offshore financial centres more generally. David realised that although these were jurisdictions where major international business was being transacted there was very little news coming out about the companies and individuals that were based there.Much of what David reports on Offshore Alert s is around potential fraud, in particular white collar crime. As such, he's been on the receiving end of a lot of lawyer’s letters. He’s been sued in Canada, in the US at federal and state court, in the High Court in London and at least twice in Panama and in Grenada. He’s also received death threats.So how does he stay unemotional in the face of all this, and still carry on reporting?Dealing with being sued“I had to earn my spurs, I had to make people afraid to sue me. And you've got to go through the battles to earn that fear.”The first person to sue David for libel was Marc Harris, an American accountant based in Panama. He was running a criminal enterprise, helping drug dealers conceal their money, while simultaneously stealing their money. “He [Marc] was later arrested in Nicaragua, put on a plane to the United States without any extradition proceedings, he was just deported. And he was convicted and sentenced to 17 years in prison.”David has subsequently engineered a situation where he believes criminals are afraid of him, they’re afraid to even send a letter of complaint, much less sue him, because his attitude now is, ‘you want to sue me? I’m going to be your worst nightmare’.The Speech Act of 2010“Prior to 2010, any time I or the company got sued outside the United States, I would defend the actions. And trust me, that's an expensive process. I got sued in the Cayman Islands, my legal fees were $350,000.”Now, if he gets sued outside of the US he doesn’t have to spend one single cent as opposed to potentially having to spend millions of dollars on fighting what he terms ‘a lost cause’. Ethical boundariesDavid categorically states he wouldn’t touch large data dumps that were obtained illegally, such as the Panama Papers. It would make him incredibly uncomfortable. “With the Paradise Papers, I really didn't see that much evidence of criminality, it was more where we don't think this is right, which is a subjective opinion.”As the organiser of conferences, he has to have a commercial relationship with the big offshore legal companies, some of whom he’s written stories about. So how does he continue to uncover wrongdoing and accept their money to sponsor his events?“Our clientele are sophisticated. We cover high value cross border finance. And I think sophisticated people are more inclined to accept the fact that we are an independent company, we are a news organisation, first and foremost, that also holds conferences.”Advice for future investigative journalistsFirst off, David wouldn’t recommend anyone enter the realm because the obstacles are so extreme. “But if despite me deterring them from going into it, they still wanted to do it, they would have passed the first test.”Secondly, you’ve got to be emotional to want to do it, to be really pissed off at fraud, but you have to be able to leave emotion to one side. “If you can't prove something with documentary evidence, don't write it. Before you publish anything, you have to imagine yourself in court, defending to a legal standard what you're about to publish.”Discussed in this podcast episode:Getting kicked out of BermudaFounding OffshoreAlertDealing with death threatsThe Speech Act of 2010The Panama PapersThe Montfort MaximLinkshttps://montfort.london/https://montfort.london/our-team/...
    Show more Show less
    37 mins
  • Susan Dunn On Pioneering Litigation Funding In The UK

    Susan Dunn On Pioneering Litigation Funding In The UK
    Jul 12 2021
    Susan Dunn, the founder of Harbour Litigation Funding, is one of the most experienced and well-known professionals in the global litigation funding sector, in particular, for pioneering the way for litigation funding in the UK.Susan has been instrumental in shaping public policy about funding, and was a founding member of the Association of Litigation Funders of which she was appointed chair in September 2019.Susan had planned to be the senior partner of the law firm she joined as a trainee, but life intervened. In what she describes as her ‘Sliding Doors’ moment, a chance meeting with a barrister on a tube train in 2002 set her on the path into litigation funding, and she hasn’t looked back.The change in opinion around fundingFor a long time, the upper echelons of the legal market believed that funding wasn't something they needed to trouble themselves with, believing that their clients would pay their bills. Today, the lawyers who don’t access funding are the ones who are behind the curve.“In the beginning it was very much, ‘please have some of my money, wouldn't you like to have my money?’ I found it weird that I was having to ask people, ‘who wants to take money from me?’ Now there isn't any type of client or any type of law firm that isn't using funding.”The cases she’s most proud ofSusan is very proud that Harbour was involved in the funding of the business interruption insurance claims brought last year, for businesses where the insurers weren’t paying out at a time when they needed cash for survival.“Now we're seeing those claims being paid, hopefully these businesses will then emerge from lockdown and survive.” Harbour also helped 15,000 Indonesian seaweed farmers when a negligently maintained oil rig spilt oil that destroyed their seaweed crop.They are funding the high profile employment status claims on behalf of Uber drivers who have not been paid minimum wage or holiday pay.They are also funding the equal pay claims on behalf of thousands of women working for supermarkets who are not being paid the same as their male colleagues in the warehouses.What she looks for in a claimWhen Susan started in litigation funding, Harbour was the only funder in the market. Now it’s a complex arena with lots of players. So what is it that she looks for in a claim, in the current environment?“The criteria for what makes a good case hasn't changed in 20 years. You always have the same starting points: Who is the party you're asking to pay and their ability to pay? Where are they located? What's the value of the claim? What's the realistic minimum value of the claim? What's the realistic budget for the claim?”Essentially, how you’re going to get paid is the key concern in a case, it’s only once you’ve established that, do you dig into the legal strengths and weaknesses of the case. Because if a case ends up costing more than initially thought, no one will be happy.They’ve turned down cases where they think they’ll win, but they know there won’t be sufficient funds for everybody to walk away happy.The class action spaceHow are Harbour prepared for the class action space that is coming, with data breach cases, cases around privacy and other similar issues?  How will they get people to join classes when there are multiple claims being run to choose from?Cautiously, says Susan, while the case law is developing. They don’t want to put all their eggs in one basket.“We receive many applications for funding every month. That puts us in the luxurious position of being able to choose which cases we want to do.”How to get funding from HarbourIf you’re a lawyer, listening to this episode and wondering what you need to do to get funding from Harbour, Susan has this advice for you:She will know nothing about your case, so give her your shortest elevator pitch:A short summary of the claim,is it against someone who can pay?,why you think the claim is worth what you say?,how much funding you need?,what the legal strengths and weaknesses of the claim are.Do not, under any circumstances, present her with huge reams of documents, and remember, her least favourite words are: “Here’s a link to my data room”. Make it interesting, and don’t give her bad cases hoping Harbour will make them good.“I can't make a 20% chance of success case better. That's not what we do. So think about it. From our point of view. If you wouldn’t fund this case, if you were a funder, we're probably going to agree with you.”Discussed in this podcast episode:Changing opinion around litigation fundingThe cases Susan’s most proud ofWhat Harbour look for in a claimThe class action spaceHow to get funding from HarbourLinkshttps://montfort.london/https://montfort.london/our-team/https://harbourlitigationfunding.com/Susan Dunn
    Show more Show less
    35 mins