While being at uni I have remained quite focused on my studies, and as such I have not really got involved in the hedonistic life that you see in the press so often.
On occasion I will go to a social event, I am not a total loner, however my principal focus is getting decent grades: at the end of the day, you only get one chance to do it.

The aspect of uni I enjoy more than anything else is composing essays.
I love writing, and I’ve always done writing for fun at home, therefore having the opportunity to do that as part of my studies is really pleasing.
By the end of this term we have to hand in a massive dissertation on common law, and I have started planning what I will argue. I prefer this sort of task to exams, because they’re fairly pressurised.

I’ve enjoyed living in the apartment for four years with the boys. We hadn’t met before we started university, we just became flatmates as a result of the decisions of a random bureaucrat, however we’re really good mates now and have experienced very few arguments during the time we’ve shared the flat.
Every so often there will be a dispute about who’s turn it is in the bath, or who devoured the pie in the fridge, but generally we are a pretty well-behaved group.
We have actually been discussing flat-sharing after we leave university, though at the moment it is not clear that we’ll all be living in the same town, thus it might not be possible.

After I finish university I want to work in one of the famous London law firms. It’s an extremely competitive field, so there will be lots of folk going for a limited amount of posts, however I have been getting amongst the highest marks in my year therefore hopefully I will get a strong degree to bring to the interview stage.
I’ve dreamt of being a lawyer since I was young, and given that it is a tangible prospect I’m really excited.
All I have to do is try not to go crazy at examination time!

Dealing with the legal side of a business is a big responsibility. There is such a lot of regulation these days which you’re obliged to abide by, and the clients and competitors appear to become more inclined to sue every day.
It is a major problem for smaller businesses, as they typically cannot afford to have an in-house lawyer, and one bad legal judgement might destroy a company. I reckon it’s high time that the weight of regulation is reduced so that it is less difficult for firms to operate without always ending up in court.

It is very useful to have a company lawyer to talk to when it comes to dealing with staff members.
Nowadays staff understand the law, and regularly cite rulings which mean they aren’t obliged to carry out specific chores which we tell them to do.
Fortunately the lawyer understands the legislation, so is in a position to explain our side of the story when needed.

I had to speak to our in-house lawyer with regard to a rival organisation who were trading under a brand-name that was tremendously close to our one.
They had established their organization just a few years after we began to operate, and yet they had decided to use such a similar name that I was convinced the customers would believe that the two businesses were part of the same organisation. Our lawyer thought so too, and he wrote an email to their owner to say that in the event that they did not change their name, we’d be obliged to seek redress in a court of law. Fortunately they backed down before things got that far.

Recently a customer sued us due to the fact that they thought that we’d promised them a cut-price deal on services provided. Their lawyer said that I had given an informal assurance that I would be able to organise a lower price for their company as the amount of work they were sending our way was larger than that of other organisations.
But this just was not correct: to start with, I didn’t promise them anything, I just noted that there might be leeway to negotiate about costs; and indeed they aren’t our top client by a considerable margin. It did not take long for their case to be thrown out.

It is incredibly helpful to have an in-house lawyer to consult with regard to dealing with our staff. Nowadays employees understand the law, and regularly refer to regulations that mean they do not have to do certain tasks that we tell them to do.
Luckily our lawyer knows the legislation, and is in a position to put them right when it’s necessary.

Handling the law-related aspect of a commercial enterprise is a full-time job. There’s so much regulatory noise now which you’ve got to stick to, and the clients and competition appear to get more litigious all the time. It’s a real problem for small businesses, who generally cannot afford to have an in-house lawyer, and a single negative legal judgement might finish off an organisation.
I believe it’s high time that the encumbrance of regulation is lessened such that it is easier for firms to trade without regularly ending up in front of a judge.

A customer recently sued us due to the fact that they were of the opinion we had promised them a special deal on services provided. Their lawyer claimed that I had provided a verbal confirmation that I could organize a different rate for them because the quantity of business they’d been directing to us was bigger than any of our other organizations. But this just was not correct: for a start, I said nothing of the sort, I simply suggested that there might be leeway to negotiate about cost; and moreover they are not our largest client by some distance.
It only took a couple of hours for the case to be thrown out.

I had to speak to the in-house lawyer about another organisation who were operating under a name that was very similar to our one. They’d started their organisation just a few years after we began operating, but still they had chosen to utilise so similar a brand-name that I believed the customers would think that the companies were part of the same organisation. Our lawyer agreed, and she wrote a missive to their boss making it clear that if they didn’t change their brand-name, we would be required to sue. Fortunately they acceded to our demand swiftly.

Overseeing the law-related side of a company is a full-time task. There is such a lot of regulatory noise nowadays that you need to comply with, plus the clients and rival companies seem to get more inclined to sue every day. It is a major problem for smaller companies, who often haven’t got the money to employ an in-house lawyer, and a single bad legal ruling might finish off a company.
I believe it’s high time that the burden of regulation is cut down in order that it’s easier for companies to trade without continually ending up in a court of law.

Recently a client sued us because they were under the impression that we had promised them a cut-price deal on the service we provide. Their lawyer asserted that I’d provided an informal confirmation that I could arrange a reduced rate for them since the amount of business they had been sending our way was bigger than any of our other clients. But this simply wasn’t correct: to start with, I did nothing of the kind, I simply suggested that it might be possible to negotiate over costs; and what is more they’re not our top customer by some distance. It only took a couple of hours for their lawsuit to be denied by a judge.

It’s incredibly useful to have an in-house lawyer to speak to with respect to dealing with workers.
Nowadays staff tend to know a bit about the law, and frequently refer to rulings which imply that they do not have to do certain tasks that we tell them to do.
Fortunately the lawyer understands all the details, so is able to set them straight whenever required.

I was obliged to talk to our in-house lawyer about another company who were operating using a name that was tremendously similar to ours.
They had established the business just six months after we began to operate, but despite this they had chosen to utilize so similar a brand-name that I believed the public at large might believe that the two companies both belonged to one organization. The lawyer concurred, and he drafted an email to their manager explaining that in the event that they did not alter their name, we’d be obliged to take the matter to court. Luckily they backed down quickly.

It is very useful to have an in-house lawyer to consult when it comes to dealing with staff members. Nowadays workers have a good understanding of the law, and often refer to rulings which mean they haven’t got to do certain chores which we ask them to carry out. Fortunately our lawyer understands all the ins and outs, so can put them right when required.

Two months ago a customer sued us due to the fact that they believed we’d promised them a special contract for services provided. Their lawyer said that I had given an informal confirmation that I could organize a reduced cost for them as the amount of business they’d been sending our way was larger than any of our other organizations. However this simply was not correct: for a start, I made no such assurance, I merely suggested that there might be leeway to haggle over costs; and furthermore they’re not our prime client by a considerable margin.
We didn’t have to wait long for the lawsuit to be thrown out.

Handling the legal side of a company is a major job. There is such a lot of regulatory noise these days that you’ve got to stick to, plus the customers and rival companies seem to become increasingly inclined to sue every day.
It is a massive concern for smaller companies, who generally cannot afford to hire an in-house lawyer, and a single unhelpful court judgement could destroy a business. I think it’s high time that the burden of bureaucracy is decreased in order that it’s more straightforward for firms to trade without constantly finding themselves in a courtroom.

I had to speak to the in-house lawyer on the subject of another company that were operating using a name which was tremendously close to ours. They’d started their company only a year or two after we began trading, and yet they’d chosen to utilize so similar a brand-name that I believed the customer would believe that the two companies were linked. Our lawyer thought so too, and he drafted a letter to their owner making it clear that if they didn’t change their brand-name, we’d be required to take the matter to court.
Luckily they backed down before things got that far.

I was obliged to speak to our in-house lawyer with regard to another organization who were operating using a brand-name which was exceptionally similar to ours. They’d started their business just a couple of years after we began trading, but still they had chosen to utilise so similar a name that I was convinced the consumers would believe that the companies linked in some way. Our lawyer was in agreement, and he drafted a missive to their boss making it clear that if they did not modify their brand-name, we would be required to seek redress in a court of law. Luckily they acceded to our demand quickly.

It is rather helpful having an in-house lawyer to consult with regard to dealings with our staff.
These days employees have a good understanding of the law, and regularly refer to rulings that mean they don’t have to do certain tasks which we ask them to do.
Luckily our lawyer knows the legislation, so is able to set them straight when required.

Two months ago a customer sued us due to the fact that they were of the opinion we had agreed a cut-price contract for services provided. Their lawyer said that I had provided a verbal confirmation that I would be able to arrange a different cost for them as the volume of work they’d been sending our way was more than any of our other customers.
But this simply wasn’t the case: to begin with, I made no such assurance, I simply said that it might be possible to negotiate over cost; and what is more they are not our biggest client by a considerable margin.
We didn’t have to wait long for that action to be denied by a judge.

Overseeing the legal aspect of a commercial enterprise is a big task.
There is so much regulation now that you’re obliged to abide by, plus the clients and competitors seem to become more litigious by the year. It is a major concern for newer companies, who typically cannot afford to employ an in-house lawyer, and a single negative legal judgment might bankrupt an organisation.
I believe it is essential that the weight of regulation is lessened so that it is easier for businesses to operate without constantly winding up in a court of law.

Addressing the legal side of a business is a major task. There is such a lot of regulation now that you’ve got to comply with, plus the consumers and competition seem to get more inclined to sue year on year.
It’s a serious concern for smaller businesses, as they typically cannot afford to have an in-house lawyer, and one bad court judgment might finish off an organisation.
I reckon it’s essential that the burden of regulatory noise is reduced such that it is simpler for firms to trade without constantly finding themselves in court.

It is exceptionally useful to have an in-house lawyer to speak to with respect to dealing with workers. These days workers have a good understanding of the law, and often cite regulations that mean that they haven’t got to do particular chores which we tell them to do. Luckily the lawyer knows the legislation, so can put them right when it’s necessary.

I had to speak to our in-house lawyer about another organization that were trading using a name which was incredibly similar to ours. They had established their business only a couple of years after we started operating, and yet they’d decided to utilise such a similar brand-name that I reckoned the consumer would believe that the two businesses linked in some way. The lawyer was of the same opinion, and he wrote a letter to their boss to say that in the event that they didn’t modify their brand-name, we would be obliged to take the matter to court. Fortunately they gave in quickly.

Recently a client took us to court because they thought we’d promised them a special deal on services provided. Their lawyer asserted that I had provided a verbal confirmation that I could organise a reduced rate for them as the amount of business they had been giving us was more than that of other customers.
However this simply was not true: for a start, I made no assurances, I simply suggested that it might be possible to negotiate about price; and what is more they’re not our largest customer by a considerable margin.
We didn’t have to wait long for that case to be thrown out.

I had to speak to the in-house lawyer about another company who were trading using a brand-name that was particularly close to ours.
They’d set up their organisation just a year or two after we started operating, but nevertheless they’d chosen to utilize such a similar brand-name that I was convinced the public at large would believe that the businesses linked in some way.
Our lawyer was in agreement, and he drafted a letter to their owner to say that if they did not modify their name, we’d be obliged to sue. Fortunately they gave in before things got that far.

Addressing the law-related side of a business is a major task.
There is so much regulatory noise these days which you’ve got to abide by, and the clients and rival companies appear to become more inclined to sue by the year. It is a serious concern for small companies, who often don’t have the funds to employ an in-house lawyer, and a single bad court judgement can finish off a business. I reckon it is vital that the burden of bureaucracy is decreased such that it’s easier for businesses to trade without always winding up in front of a judge.

It’s rather helpful to have an in-house lawyer to speak to when it comes to dealing with our staff.
These days staff are well-informed about the law, and often cite regulations which mean they aren’t obliged to carry out particular chores which we ask them to carry out. Fortunately our lawyer knows all the details, and is in a position to put them right whenever required.

Last month a client sued us due to the fact that they believed that we had promised them a special contract for the service we provide. Their lawyer asserted that I had provided an informal assurance that I could organise a different cost for their company since the quantity of work they had been giving us was more than any of our other organisations. But this simply was not correct: to start with, I did nothing of the kind, I simply suggested that it might be possible to negotiate over costs; and moreover they are not our largest client by some distance.
It did not take long for their lawsuit to be dismissed.

Up until 2011 I worked in a solicitors London. I wasn’t in fact a solicitor, I was the secretary, however it’s amazing how much legal knowledge you find out simply from being in that environment.
I am staying in Perth these days.
I had always known that English and Scottish law were distinct, however I did not realise how significantly until such time as I moved up here. Many of the dissimilarities are just relics from centuries ago, so they do not really have much effect on the current legal situation.

In terms of the law in England, an individual isn’t recognized as a grown-up until they’re eighteen, whereas in Scotland’s system the legal age of majority is sixteen. That’s also true for marriage: in England you’ve got to be 18 to get married; north of the border you can become husband and wife at 16, or at 14 when you’ve got your folks’ approval! At sixteen, okay, however fourteen seems a touch young to me.
Scotland was also the last EU country to scrap ‘common law’ marriages, with the last of these laws getting removed in 2007.

A crucial difference between Scots and English law is the feasibility of starting a private prosecution.
In England you are able to choose to start a personal prosecution when the State chooses not to take a case to court.
However in Scotland, this is practically impossible.
It is the procurator fiscal who chooses whether a case is brought to court or not.
If the PF decides not to continue with the prosecution, that is it. I mean, in theory you are able to apply to the High Court for permission to bring a private prosecution, however in reality this maybe happens once every ten years or thereabouts. On the flip-side, you also can’t stop someone having their prosecution heard by refusing to make your case, like you can in England. It is the PF, and only the procurator, who decides.

Many old laws in Scotland’s system still speak of the monarchy of Scotland, and many of the old laws in England still speak of Scotsmen invading England with broadswords. Plus in Scotland there are legal statutes that have been written in Gaelic.

Many older laws in Scotland still talk about the monarchy of Scotland, and certain of the old English laws still speak of Scots making incursions into English land with broadswords. Plus in the Scottish system there are laws which are coined in Gaelic.

A major dissimilarity between Scots and English law is the possibility of bringing a private prosecution. In England you are able to decide to bring a private prosecution if the Crown opts not to bring the matter to court. However north of the border, that is practically unheard of. It is the PF who decides whether the matter is taken to court or isn’t.
When the procurator decides not to go ahead with the prosecution, that’s it. I mean, in principle you are able to contact the High Court for the right to bring a personal case, but in practice that maybe occurs one time every ten years or so. On the other side of the coin, you equally cannot halt someone having their prosecution heard by refusing to submit your case, like you’re able to do in the English system.
It is the procurator, and only the procurator, who decides.

In the eyes of the law in England, someone isn’t recognised as a grown-up until they are eighteen, while in Scotland the official age of majority is sixteen. This is the same for marriage: south of the border you’ve got to be eighteen to become husband and wife; in the Scottish system you are able to get married at sixteen, or at 14 if you have your folks’ approval! Aged sixteen, fair enough, however 14 seems a tad youthful to me. Scotland was also the last EU nation to scrap “common law” marriage, with the most recent legislation getting removed in 2005.

Until 2010 I was employed in a solicitors London.
I was not in fact a solicitor, I was the receptionist, but it is amazing what a lot of legal understanding you absorb just from being in this environs.
I’m living in St Andrews these days. I was aware that Scots and English law were distinct, but I did not realise how significantly until I relocated north.
Many of the differences are just hangovers from a long time ago, so they don’t actually have any impact on modern life.