Who in Game of Thrones would make the best lawyer?

She was last seen evading the admiring glances of Tormund Giantsbane, who was delighted to find any female enter the Tinder radar of Castle Black.

We have also watched her smoulder in a steaming-hot bath tub with a naked and apparent platonic Knight-peer, Jaime Lannister, the Kingslayer.

Whilst her past with Renly and Jaime leads her Facebook relationship status to read “It’s complicated”, her confused emotions do not detract from the fact that, in my view, Brienne of Tarth possesses many of the essential characteristics which would make her the best lawyer in the Seven Kingdoms.

Brienne of Tarth would make the best lawyer in Game of Thrones.  And here is why:

Honesty and integrity

In a profession reliant on its officers being good to their word, who better to oversee the course of justice than the wielder of the “Oathmaker”? All good lawyers have an ethical duty to be honest. Brienne prides herself on her honesty and her integrity. She is the one character who, throughout the series’, cannot be said to have deceived anyone to aid an ulterior motive or to support her own personal agenda. Her integrity is visibly seen in her quest to become a knight. She is a stickler for procedure. Even when she meets Stannis Baratheon, for whom she has been relentlessly searching for to avenge the death of Renly, she maintains her cool, follows procedure and offers Stannis with the opportunity for some last words with no one else around to hear them. This unfailing integrity would be required in the legal profession.

Loyalty

When confronted with uncontrollable members of the Stark clan who had pillaged their own people, Brienne has no issues with giving them their just deserts. This is because she knows her loyalty lies with Catelyn Stark specifically and not the Stark clan as a whole. She has no ambitions of her own and acts only in Catelyn’s best interests. Brienne can already see where the boundaries of a conflict of interest lie. Throughout the series’ she shows immense loyalty to both Renly and Catelyn Stark, and goes so far as to state that their deaths do not release her from her vows. Brienne would do anything for her clients, and would generally always put their needs ahead of her own.

Resilience

Brienne’s loyalty is exemplified in her resilience when undertaking tasks on behalf of Catelyn and Renly. It is safe to presume she would show the same determination when undergoing work for a client. The fact that Arya and Sansa Stark are presumed dead does not deter Brienne from searching for them. Where many had failed previously, Brienne is successful in locating both of them relatively quickly. Even when she is told by Sansa that she does not want her help, Brienne stays in close contact with her to ensure her safety and to be there when she did need assistance. Many again would have given up at this stage, exemplifying that her perseverance often eventually brings success.

Fearless

It is fair to say that Brienne is not one to shirk away from getting her hands dirty and certainly not one to back away from a fight. Throughout the series’ she separately takes on two of the best swordsmen in the land in the shape of Jaime Lannister and the Hound. Despite facing formidable opponents, her resilience is rewarded on both occasions. An opponent who is easily underestimated is always a dangerous one and this applies in legal circles too. Brienne’s self-belief and fearlessness would ensure that she strives to obtain the best result for her clients.

Poker face

I personally would never want to play poker with Brienne. Her facial reactions give very little away. Who can forget that emotionless, over-the-shoulder smoulder which she shared with Jamie Lannister in that bath tub? Even when thrown in that pit with a bear and nothing but a wooden spoon to protect herself, her expression remained stoic. An important part of being a lawyer is being able to detach yourself emotionally from any situation which allows you to remain objective. You require to stay cool under pressure and not lose focus of what you are arguing for. Combine this trait with Brienne’s fearlessness, and who else would you want fighting your corner in a courtroom?

Conclusion

So she can’t ride a fire-breathing dragon. Nor can she come back from the dead or harness the fire magic.  However it’s Brienne of Tarth who possesses the characteristics required to make her the best lawyer in the Seven Kingdoms.

Brienne’s unhinged loyalty and fearless approach to confrontation would make any client comfortable in her shadow. She would literally (and figuratively) fall on her sword for her client.

Forget about “Game of Thrones”. Brienne of Tarth is the “Dame of Tomes”.

Andrew Wallace 
Solicitor – Employment Law
@EmpLawyerAndy
www.blackadders.co.uk

Employment Termination Payments Reforms to tax treatment but £30,000 exemption to remain

Proposals in relation to the tax treatment of termination payments are set to take effect from April 2018.  HMRC is currently consulting about the draft legislation which is to underpin the reforms.

Under the proposed new system, the first £30,000 of any payments resulting from termination of employment will remain exempt from income tax.  In addition, termination payments will continue to have unlimited exemption from employee national insurance contributions (NICs).

Notable changes include the payment of employer NICs on payments above the £30,000 threshold (which are currently exempt).  Notice payments are also to be subjected to income tax and NICs in all cases where payment is made in lieu of all or part of the notice period.  This is aimed at removing any ambiguity under the current system where non-contractual payments in lieu of notice create a slightly grey area in terms of tax.

Any payments which are made towards injury to feelings will also subject to tax under the new system thus removing the current uncertainty over this type of payment.

The proposals are intended to strike a balance between supporting those who lose their job and safeguarding against abuse of the £30,000 exemption.

The consultation closes on 5 October 2016 and can be viewed here.

Jack Boyle 
Associate Solicitor – Employment Law
@EmpLawyerJack
www.blackadders.co.uk

Key differences between “without prejudice” conversations and pre-termination discussions

Settlement agreements can be a very effective, amicable way of bringing a problematic employee’s employment to an end. There are generally 2 ways to initiate these discussions. One is through a “without prejudice” conversation. The other is through a “pre-termination negotiation”. Whichever road the employer chooses can have consequences that are worth considering.

Without prejudice conversation

A without prejudice conversation can only arise when there is a dispute between the employer and the employee. This may be in the form a grievance or some other kind of dispute. If there is no dispute, any such conversation will be admissible in the courts. The key facts to remember are as follows:

  • There needs to be a dispute
  • The fact that negotiations have taken place can be used in the future as evidence, but not the content of those negotiations
  • The inadmissibility of these conversations can be waived if both parties agree
  • It is difficult to remove privilege on the basis of the conduct of parties – a party must act with “unambiguous impropriety” before the privilege is removed.

Note too that the content must be a genuine attempt to settle a dispute. If a communication merely sets out a party’s right and does not make an offer to negotiate, despite the fact it is marked “without prejudice” this information may well be admissible in the courts.

Pre-termination negotiation

A pre-termination negotiation does not require a previous dispute between the employer and the employee, but the privilege only arises in cases of unfair dismissal. It is a discussion between employer and employee, designed to bring the employee’s employment to an end amicably. If the matter gives rise to discrimination, whistleblowing or any other automatic unfair dismissal claim, the privilege will not stand. The key facts to remember are as follows:

  • This only applies in respect of unfair dismissal claims
  • The fact the discussions themselves have taken place is inadmissible
  • The inadmissibility cannot be waived by both parties
  • It is easier to remove privilege than a “without prejudice” conversation– it only requires “improper behaviour” by either party

Note too that both types of conversations can be waived if there is to be an application for costs going forward.

Pros and Cons

There are pros and cons to the privilege arising for both of these types of discussion, the particulars of which are complicated. Employers have been undone by not being aware of the differences in the past. Remember to look before you leap and think before you speak. Don’t prejudice yourself by using “without prejudice” incorrectly.

If you require any assistance on which type of procedure to use, please get in touch with us at Blackadders and keep your eyes peeled for our free seminar in October.

Andrew Wallace 
Solicitor – Employment Law
@EmpLawyerAndy
www.blackadders.co.uk 

More “sickies” in the sunshine?

Medical practitioners have recently motioned for the current period for self-certification of absence to be extended to 14 days.  Under the current system, an employee can self-certify for absences from work for up to seven days (including weekends).  Where the absence extends beyond seven days, the employee is required to provide a “fit note” from his or her GP certifying him or her as unfit for work.

The rationale behind the motion is to free up valuable GP time to focus more appointments on people with acute or chronic conditions.  It is understood that a large number of GP appointments are taken up with employees who have reached the end of the current seven day self-certificate period, who remain unfit for work and who need a GP to sign a “fit note” to cover the employee until they are well enough to return.  A GP has the same appointment time for every patient and they do not have advance notice of the reasons behind each appointment.

The more cynical employers out there might be of the view that doubling the period available for self-certification doubles the scope for abuse of the system.  Doubtless there are employers who see regular patterns of absence with employees returning to work just before the requirement to visit the doctor for a fit note is triggered.  Equally, there will be many hard working, conscientious employees out there who beat themselves up about using a rare sick day when they can barely move out of bed!

Would this development have a huge practical significance?  Employers will certainly be well advised to revisit their absence management procedures if this development gets approval.  Employees should be required to personally telephone their line manager or HR department before their allotted start time on each day of self-certified absence to detail the reason for the absence and expected timescale for return to work.  Employers should also keep track of their sick pay provisions – an employee who is only entitled to the minimum statutory sick pay (currently £88.45 per week) is less likely to take a two week sickie than an employee who is entitled to full pay.  The proposal is unlikely to make any impact on the shorter absences, for example, in respect of Mr Friday night/Monday morning who pulls a sickie due to a hangover.

Employers should also remember that disciplinary action can be taken against malingerers.  Where an employer has evidence which contradicts an employee’s explanation for absence, the disciplinary procedure may need to be invoked.  Dishonesty is potentially misconduct.  An employee who exaggerates or lies about their health to justify an absence is dishonest.  Some may be of the view that it is easier to get away with a “sickie” during a period of self-certification than it would be at a later stage when a doctor’s line is required.  However, there was a recent case in the Employment Appeal Tribunal where the employer was judged to have fairly dismissed an employee for lying about the reasons for absence, even where the employee’s absence was backed up by an occupational health report.

If the proposal does go through, employers should be (as a minimum) amending their absence reporting procedures to bring these up to date.

Jack Boyle
Associate 
@EmpLawyerJack
www.blackadders.co.uk