By Julius Melnitzer | April 29, 2024
KIDS DON’T FACTOR MUCH IN GENDER PAY GAP
While confirming the ubiquity of the gender pay gap across seniority groups and practice areas, a UK Bar Council study concludes that caring responsibilities “are not the sole, or even a primary, factor in the median earnings difference.” The Law Society Gazette reports that while a 22% gap exists among barristers with three years at the Bar who have caring responsibilities, the corresponding gap for those with no caring responsibilities is 16 percent.
Related Article: Men Talking About Moms at the Partnership Table
BACK TO ROBES FOR FAMILY COURT JUDGES
Judges at the UK’s Central Family Court will again wear robes, but not wigs. According to Practice Source, the pilot project is aimed at assessing ‘if robing makes a difference to family court proceedings’. The Courts and Tribunals Judiciary says the move follows ‘concern about incidents of violent and threatening behaviour experiences by judges and court users’. In December 2023, a self-represented litigant assaulted a judge during a private family hearing. Lawyers, for better or worse, will not be expected to wear robes.
Related Article: Bucking the trends: the gentle way to fierce advocacy
ALBERTA CHAMPIONS HARASSMENT CLAIMS
More than one year after the Alberta Court of King’s Bench’s landmark decision in Alberta Health Services v. Johnston, the province remains the only Canadian jurisdiction to recognize the tort of harassment. In fact, as Jeff Adams points out in Fasken Martineau Dumoulin LLP’s newsletter, The HR Space, Ontario and BC judges have specifically declined to do so. But, Adams adds, other provinces “may well follow” Alberta’s lead “and recognize similar torts”.
Related Article: Court of Appeal rejects recognizing tort of harassment
TOUGH SELL FOR UNREPRESENTED LITIGANTS
British High Court Judge Paul Matthews has warned self-represented litigants not to expect special treatment. According to The Law Society Gazette, Matthews added that ‘modern day litigants in person had no excuse for not knowing the rules’ and that modern legal services markets allowed for ‘short, limited advice’ at ‘modest cost’ from lawyers. Matthews’ view may beg the question of what constitutes ‘modest cost’ for many.
Related Article: What to do about sharp rise in self-represented litigants
HOW MUCH LEMON MAKES A LEMON?
To the disappointment of the masses, no doubt, an Illinois lawsuit has alleged that Stauffer’s Lemon Snaps cookies contain ‘no appreciable amount of lemon’. No matter, writes Jeff Greenbaum, managing partner at New York City’s Frankfurt Kurnit Klein & Selz, in the firm’s Advertising Law Updates blog, as an Illinois court has held that the product’s name does not support a claim for false advertising under the Illinois Consumer Fraud and Deceptie Practices Act. The court reasoned that ‘a reasonable conusmer would not interpret the packaging as implying that actual lemons are used in Lemon Snaps’. In a stunning burst of logic, the court noted that the result would have been different if the product turned out to be mango-flavoured.
Related Article: The West Bank is not Israel
Julius Melnitzer is a Toronto-based legal affairs writer, ghostwriter, writing coach and media trainer. Readers can reach him at [email protected] or https://legalwriter.net/contact.