London-Legals.com

When I graduate from university I hope to get a job with one of the most prominent London law firms.
It is a tremendously competitive field, so there will be a lot of graduates trying to get a limited number of posts, but I have been getting amongst the best grades in my class so I’m hopeful that I will get a strong qualification to bring to the application process. I’ve wanted to be a lawyer my whole life, and given that it’s an actual possibility I am as excited as can be. All I’ve got to do is avoid going mental during the examination stage!

While being at uni I’ve been extremely focused on doing the work, and consequently I have not really got involved in the hedonistic way of life which you will hear about so often.
Once in a while I’ll go to a night out, I am not a total loner, however my priority is getting good marks: at the end of the day, you just get one chance to do it.

I’ve enjoyed sharing the flat for three years with the boys.
We hadn’t met when we began university, we just became flatmates as a result of the decisions of a random administrator, but we’re extremely good pals nowadays and have had very few quarrels in the years we have lived together. Sometimes there are disagreements about who’s next in the shower, or who consumed the bread in the fridge, but by and large we are a very friendly group. We have actually been thinking about sharing a flat after we have graduated from uni, though at present it’s not certain that all of us will be living in one city, therefore it may not be achievable.

The bit of my course I enjoy most is writing dissertations.
I really love to write, and I have always written in my spare time, thus being able to do it as an element of my studies is really pleasing. At the conclusion of this term we have to hand in a large dissertation on jurisprudence, and I’ve already begun working out what I’ll say.
I prefer that sort of thing to exams, because they’re pretty pressurised.

The part of my course I like most is writing essays.
I really love to write, and I have always written during my leisure time, therefore getting the chance to do it as a bit of my course is extremely pleasing.
At the end of this semester we have to complete a massive dissertation on common law, and I have begun planning the things that I will write.
I much prefer this kind of chore to examinations, which are fairly pressurised.

While studying at university I’ve remained pretty focussed on getting the work done, and consequently I have not really engaged in the party life which you will hear about so regularly. Every so often I’ll attend a night out, I am not a total misanthrope, but the most important thing is achieving high grades: at the end of the day, you just get one shot to get it right.

Once I finish university I hope to get a job in one of the most prominent London law firms. It’s a very tough business to get in to, so there’ll be a lot of graduates going for a limited amount of posts, however I have been getting some of the best grades in my class so hopefully I’ll have a good qualification to take into the interview process.
I’ve wanted to be a lawyer since I was a child, so now that it is a tangible possibility I am really excited.
All I need to do is not go insane during exam time!

I have really enjoyed living in the flat for three years with the boys.
We hadn’t met until we began university, we just ended up as cohabitees through the decisions of a faceless administrator, however we are extremely close mates these days and have had surprisingly few fallings out in the years we have lived together.
Once in a while there are disagreements about who’s turn it is in the bath, or who ate the pie in the fridge, however in general we’re an extraordinarily well-behaved group. We have even been talking about living together after we leave university, although as it stands it’s not certain that all of us will be living in one city, therefore that might not be possible.

I had to speak to the in-house lawyer about a rival company that were operating using a brand-name which was incredibly similar to our one. They had started the company just a year or two after we started trading, but despite this they had decided to use so similar a brand-name that I believed the public at large might think that the companies both belonged to one organization.
The lawyer agreed, and he drafted a letter to their owner making it clear that if they didn’t alter their name, we would be duty-bound to seek redress in a court of law. Fortunately they backed down before things got that far.

Dealing with the law-related side of a commercial enterprise is a major job. There is such a lot of regulation nowadays that you need to comply with, plus the consumers and competition appear to get increasingly disputatious all the time.
It’s a real issue for new businesses, as they generally cannot afford to have an in-house lawyer, and a single bad court judgment might bankrupt an organisation. I reckon it is high time that the burden of bureaucracy is cut down in order that it’s more straightforward for companies to operate without constantly ending up in front of a judge.

It’s rather useful to have an in-house lawyer to consult when it comes to dealing with workers. Nowadays staff have a good understanding of the law, and frequently cite regulations which imply that they don’t have to do specific tasks which we ask them to do. Luckily our lawyer understands all the ins and outs, and is able to explain our side of the story when required.

A client recently took us to court because they reckoned that we had promised them a special deal on services provided. Their lawyer asserted that I had offered an informal assurance that I would be able to organize a reduced price for them because the quantity of work they’d been sending our way was bigger than that of other organizations. But this simply wasn’t true: to start with, I made no assurances, I merely suggested that it might be possible to negotiate over costs; and what is more they’re not our biggest customer by some distance. It did not take long for the lawsuit to be dismissed.

It is tremendously helpful to have an in-house lawyer to speak to with respect to interacting with workers. Nowadays workers are well-informed about the law, and often cite rulings which imply they don’t have to do certain tasks which we tell them to carry out. Fortunately our lawyer knows all the details, and can set them straight whenever it’s necessary.

Last month a client took us to court due to the fact that they were of the opinion we had promised them a cut-price deal on services provided.
Their lawyer asserted that I had provided a verbal assurance that I could organise a reduced rate for them as the amount of work they were sending our way was more than that of other clients. However this just wasn’t the case: to begin with, I didn’t promise them anything, I merely suggested that there might be leeway to haggle about cost; and moreover they aren’t our largest client by some distance. It only took a couple of hours for the case to be thrown out.

Handling the legal side of a company is a major responsibility.
There is so much regulatory noise nowadays that you’re required to abide by, and the customers and competition appear to get increasingly disputatious every day.
It’s a serious issue for new companies, who generally don’t have the funds to employ an in-house lawyer, and a single bad legal judgment could bankrupt a business.
I reckon it is vital that the weight of regulatory noise is cut down such that it is less difficult for companies to trade without continually winding up in front of a judge.

I was obliged to talk to our in-house lawyer about a rival company who were operating under a name which was very close to ours. They had started the business only a couple of years after we began to operate, but nevertheless they had chosen to use so similar a name that I was convinced the consumer may believe that the two businesses were linked. Our lawyer agreed, and she drafted an email to their manager to say that in the event that they did not change their name, we would be obliged to bring a lawsuit against them.
Luckily they acceded to our demand swiftly.

It’s incredibly useful having an in-house lawyer to speak to with regard to interacting with our staff. These days workers tend to know a bit about the legal situation, and regularly refer to rulings which mean that they don’t have to carry out specific chores which we tell them to carry out. Fortunately our lawyer knows the legislation, so is able to set them straight when required.

I was obliged to talk to our in-house lawyer with regard to another organization who were operating using a name which was incredibly similar to ours. They’d set up the company only a couple of years after we started trading, and yet they had chosen to use such a similar name that I reckoned the general public would think that the companies were linked. Our lawyer agreed, and he wrote a missive to their manager explaining that if they didn’t change their brand-name, we would be obliged to take the matter to court. Fortunately they acceded to our demand quickly.

Handling the legal side of a business is a major job.
There is so much regulatory noise nowadays that you’re obliged to comply with, and the consumers and competition seem to get more litigious all the time. It is a massive concern for small businesses, who usually cannot afford to hire an in-house lawyer, and one unhelpful court judgment can finish off a company. I think it is essential that the weight of regulatory noise is lessened so that it is less difficult for businesses to operate without regularly finding themselves in front of a judge.

A client recently took us to court because they believed that we’d promised them a special contract for services provided. Their lawyer asserted that I’d provided a verbal assurance that I would be able to organise a reduced price for them as the volume of business they were giving us was more than any of our other organizations. But this simply was not the case: to start with, I made no such assurance, I just noted that there could be room to haggle about price; and indeed they aren’t our largest customer by some distance. It only took a couple of hours for the action to be denied by a judge.

It is incredibly handy to have a full-time lawyer to talk to with respect to dealings with employees. These days staff tend to know a bit about the law, and often refer to regulations that imply they do not have to do certain chores that we tell them to carry out. Luckily our lawyer knows all the details, so can set them straight when needed.

I had to talk to the in-house lawyer about another company that were operating under a name that was tremendously close to ours. They’d set up their organisation only a year or two after we started trading, and yet they’d chosen to use so similar a brand-name that I felt the customers might think that the two businesses linked in some way.
Our lawyer thought so too, and she wrote a letter to their manager making it clear that if they did not alter their name, we would be duty-bound to bring a lawsuit against them. Fortunately they gave in swiftly.

Dealing with the legal side of a company is a major job. There is so much regulation these days which you’re required to comply with, plus the clients and rival companies seem to get more disputatious by the year. It is a real problem for smaller companies, who typically don’t have the funds to employ an in-house lawyer, and one bad legal ruling can bankrupt a company.
I think it is essential that the encumbrance of bureaucracy is decreased so that it is easier for companies to operate without always ending up in front of a judge.

Two months ago a customer took us to court due to the fact that they reckoned that we’d agreed a special contract for the service we provide.
Their lawyer claimed that I had offered an informal assurance that I would be able to organize a lower cost for their company because the volume of work they had been directing to us was larger than any of our other clients. But this just wasn’t true: for a start, I did nothing of the kind, I just said that it might be possible to negotiate over price; and what is more they are not our biggest client by a considerable margin. It did not take long for the action to be dismissed.

It’s tremendously useful having a full-time lawyer to talk to with respect to dealing with workers. Nowadays staff tend to know a bit about the legal situation, and frequently cite rulings that mean that they do not have to do certain chores which we ask them to carry out. Luckily our lawyer understands all the ins and outs, so is able to put them right when it’s necessary.

Two months ago a customer took us to court because they thought that we’d promised them a cut-price deal on services provided.
Their lawyer claimed that I’d provided an informal confirmation that I could organize a different cost for them because the volume of work they had been directing to us was larger than that of other organizations. But this simply wasn’t the case: to begin with, I did nothing of the kind, I merely noted that it might be possible to negotiate over cost; and furthermore they aren’t our top customer by a considerable margin. We didn’t have to wait long for the case to be denied by a judge.

Addressing the law-related aspect of a business is a full-time task. There is so much regulation now which you need to stick to, and the consumers and competition appear to become more disputatious by the year. It is a major issue for newer companies, as they typically cannot afford to have an in-house lawyer, and a single negative legal judgment might finish off an organisation. I think it’s essential that the weight of bureaucracy is decreased such that it’s simpler for companies to operate without constantly ending up in a courtroom.

I was obliged to talk to the in-house lawyer with regard to another organization that were operating under a brand-name which was tremendously close to ours. They had established their organisation just two or three years after we started to operate, but despite this they had chosen to use so similar a brand-name that I believed the consumer might think that the companies both belonged to one organization. Our lawyer agreed, and he wrote a letter to their owner to say that if they did not modify their brand-name, we’d be required to seek redress in a court of law. Fortunately they acceded to our demand immediately.

I was obliged to speak to our in-house lawyer about another organization who were trading using a name which was tremendously similar to our one.
They’d established the business just two or three years after we started operating, and yet they had decided to utilise so similar a brand-name that I reckoned the customer may think that the two companies were part of the same organisation.
Our lawyer agreed, and he wrote a letter to their manager to say that in the event that they did not change their name, we’d be duty-bound to take the matter to court. Luckily they gave in swiftly.

A client recently sued us because they thought we had promised them a cut-price contract for the service we provide. Their lawyer said that I’d provided an informal confirmation that I would be able to arrange a different cost for their company as the quantity of work they were sending our way was bigger than that of other clients. However this just was not true: for a start, I made no such assurance, I simply noted that there could be room to haggle over cost; and moreover they are not our top client by some distance. It only took a couple of hours for the case to be dismissed.

It’s incredibly useful to have an in-house lawyer to speak to with regard to interacting with employees.
Nowadays employees understand the law, and regularly cite regulations which imply they don’t have to do particular chores which we tell them to carry out.
Fortunately our lawyer understands all the details, so is in a position to explain our side of the story when required.

Handling the legal aspect of a business is a full-time responsibility.
There’s such a lot of regulatory noise nowadays which you’re obliged to abide by, and the customers and competitors appear to get more disputatious year on year.
It is a major concern for smaller companies, who typically don’t have the funds to hire an in-house lawyer, and one negative legal ruling could break an organisation. I think it is high time that the weight of bureaucracy is decreased in order that it is less difficult for companies to trade without regularly winding up in a courtroom.