Web week 19/06/06
19 June 2006
1 July 2013
15 January 2014
30 September 2013
22 May 2013
13 May 2013
The Lawyer's Web Week is a weekly commentary on legal activity on the web. This includes an overview of the best of the week's blogs. If you want to direct us to useful links, email webweek@thelawyer. com.
Keeping up with the action
Football and the web was a troublesome mix for trade union Amicus, which got into a spot of media bother after posting advice about how to deal with throwing World Cup-related sickies on www.amicustheunion.org. It asked this question: "So you want to watch the World Cup, but you're meant to be at work when it's on: can you play away or is the risk of permanent relegation from your job too high?" Oddly, there was very little reaction on legal websites, but plenty of predictable comments in the wider press.
For fans who are banned
You can't get away from the World Cup, as the number of hits on Tulkinghorn's World Cup Blog on www. thelawyer.com/blog has made abundantly clear. Tulkinghorn managed to post plenty last week - "Pinsents bans pubs as England fever hits the City" - as well as launching a search among the US firms for showings of the competition, but the most alarming posting may have been the one entitled "Lactating girlfriends, seven foot Rooneys
and Lovells systems' crash".
"Tulkinghorn hears of dramas from the Lovells project finance party, where the sound system failed mid-way through the first half. Never fear, 'Tony the AV guy' was on hand to leap into action with spare batteries and instantly became everyone's hero. There was nearly a ruckus though, with the steel drum band firmly backing Trinidad & Tobago."
The threat of relegation
We applaud this nifty little marketing move by Derby-based CJH Solicitors. It handles high street work, with an interesting sideline in football-related law enforcement, and it has set up www.footballbanningorders.net as a first port of call for any England fan wanting to know their rights. On its related blog footballbanningorders .blogspot.com, solicitor Peter Jones wrote: "The BBC has reported on outbreaks of violence at some of the mass TV screenings of England's first match. Should those charged and convicted be made the subject of football banning orders? Presumably, it could be argued that they have shown that if allowed to attend games they may tend to cause violence and disorder. But is attendance at a screening enough to say that the violence was football related?
"There was an anonymous response. "Where do you draw the line? Do you end up with a banning order if you end up in fracas in a pub while football happens to be on the telly?"
Over at www.moretolaw.com, thoughts were on associate work-life balance on the back of a profile in the Financial Times of Bank of America associate general counsel Sajid Hussein.
It said: "If banks will pay you more and work you less, everyone should be making the move. If these huge, US-led bastions of capitalism and the hardcore work ethic are really better places to work than magic circle law firms (once cosy, collegiate places where much golf was played and time was spent discussing the niceties of complicated points of law in the gentleman's club), something has gone seriously wrong."
Meanwhile, www.rollonfriday .com unearthed a groundbreaking initiative at Edinburgh firm Bell & Scott, which is offering unpaid work experience placements for law students… in the post room. Bell & Scott claim that the placement is 'a great opportunity to find out more about the firm'. Maybe it's something to do with
Chatroom discussion, meanwhile, appeared to centre mostly on football and lesbians.
In Germany, legal website www.juve.de focused on worries within Freshfields Bruckhaus Deringer's German operation that the partnership reforms and de equitisations would throw the baby out with the bathwater. Partners were reported as saying that they feared the place was going to turn into Linklaters. Heaven forbid.