Let attorneys be attorneys and leave the admin work to those who get paid to get it done. It’s a battle as old as WordPerfect versus Word: Should lawyers type? Since lawyers have keyboarding skills, how many can be assigned to one admin assistant? Two? Three? Five? Imagine all the cost savings … right? Wrong. Instead, imagine all the headaches. All the extra stuff that you, the lawyer, get to do — or worse, pile up because you are too busy to handle it. Am I saying lawyers shouldn’t know how to do administrative work? No. I’m saying you shouldn’t have to do it. The Shrinking Admin Assistant: How Did We Get Here? Long ago, before lawyers began worrying that robots would replace them, tech companies with war chests flush with capital started pitching the many ways “technology” removes the need for assistants. Like assistants were the problem. Here’s the disconnect: Technology requires input — usually keyboarding, but also formatting, calculating, and searching. Whatever the input, it should not be done at the highest cost to the firm — lawyers’ time — or to the detriment of lawyers’ mental health and overall well-being. According to the “2021 State of U.S. Small Law Firms” report from Thomson Reuters, the proportion of lawyers’ time spent practicing law has dropped to a new low of only 56%, barely half of their time. The report, released this week, says that lawyers are increasingly concerned about how managing administrative tasks impacts their ability to practice law. They now rate it as their top concern. This is why, when I hear that a tech “replaces” the need for a human in the process of law firm operations, I call it what it is: BS sales tactics. Three Reasons Admin Staff Are Integral to Your Law Firm’s Operations Here

Let attorneys be attorneys and leave the admin work to those who get paid to get it done. It’s a battle as old as WordPerfect versus Word: Should lawyers type? Since lawyers have keyboarding skills, how many can be assigned to one admin assistant? Two? Three? Five? Imagine all the cost savings … right? Wrong. Instead, imagine all the headaches. All the extra stuff that you, the lawyer, get to do — or worse, pile up because you are too busy to handle it. Am I saying lawyers shouldn’t know how to do administrative work? No. I’m saying you shouldn’t have to do it. The Shrinking Admin Assistant: How Did We Get Here? Long ago, before lawyers began worrying that robots would replace them, tech companies with war chests flush with capital started pitching the many ways “technology” removes the need for assistants. Like assistants were the problem. Here’s the disconnect: Technology requires input — usually keyboarding, but also formatting, calculating, and searching. Whatever the input, it should not be done at the highest cost to the firm — lawyers’ time — or to the detriment of lawyers’ mental health and overall well-being. According to the “2021 State of U.S. Small Law Firms” report from Thomson Reuters, the proportion of lawyers’ time spent practicing law has dropped to a new low of only 56%, barely half of their time. The report, released this week, says that lawyers are increasingly concerned about how managing administrative tasks impacts their ability to practice law. They now rate it as their top concern. This is why, when I hear that a tech “replaces” the need for a human in the process of law firm operations, I call it what it is: BS sales tactics. Three Reasons Admin Staff Are Integral to Your Law Firm’s Operations Here

MyCase, a long-standing case management software provider, has established itself as an effective all-in-one solution for law firms, jam-packed with in-house features. Thus, MyCase has traditionally restricted the number of integration partners to only the most popular and ubiquitous technology platforms, like Microsoft Office and MailChimp, to name two. Now, in step with the growth of the legal tech space overall, the MyCase universe is beginning to expand. MyCase is still an effective standalone platform for law firms, but MyCase will integrate with other top-shelf technology partners when the opportunity presents itself. And so, opportunity has knocked: MyCase recently increased its slate of integration offerings by two, adding CalendarRules and Smith.ai to its stable. Let’s take a look at each, in turn. On the Docket: MyCase Adds CalendarRules Integration CalendarRules is a calendar add-on feature that pulls and calculates deadlines for specific courts around the United States. If there’s one thing lawyers worry about more than revenue, it’s malpractice claims; and, one consistent bogeyman invading those nightmares is missed court deadlines. CalendarRules makes it easier to manage court deadlines, including updates to rules, while largely removing human error from the equation. Now, MyCase users can add CalendarRules features to the MyCase calendar. Once the integration for CalendarRules has been installed through MyCase, users simply select the “Add Court Rule” option from the calendar or a case page to add CalendarRules functionality. From there, a handy wizard guides the user through the setup of the particular ruleset, through the selection of a case type, relevant jurisdiction, and rules triggers. Once that’s done, the user selects “Calculate,” and the relevant court deadlines are added to the MyCase calendar. (Note that available jurisdictions are based on the user’s underlying CalendarRules subscription.) MyCase users also have additional functionality available to them, in tweaking these

The Apex Court, while hearing an appeal, made an observation that any changes in the date of birth, specifically in the service records, could not be claimed as of right. The bench denied the existence of this right even in cases of compelling evidence placed before the court. In the instant case, the employee/respondent of the Karnataka Rural Infrastructure Development Limited filed a plea requesting its employer to change his date of birth. Later, he also filed a suit for declaration regarding his date of birth, however, the same had been dismissed by Trial Court. Thereafter, on an appeal to High Court, the bench allowed the appeal and decreed the suit. Aggrieved by the order of High Court, the corporation approached the Supreme Court wherein it contended that the right claimed by employee could not be provided and the advantage of alteration could not be extended to a State-government servant. The counsel on behalf of corporation backed its argument by contending that the request could’ve been allowed, provided the employee had made an application within three years from which his birth date and age had been accepted and recorded in the service records, or within one year from the date of commencement of Karnataka State Servants (Determination of Age) Act, 1974, whichever appeared to be later. The counsel further submitted that in the instant case, the employee had filed the application for the first time after the lapse of 24 years. The apex court bench accepted the contentions of corporation and observed that such applications could be processed only in accordance with the relevant provisions. The same could not be entertained when filed after a long delay or when the employee had reached the age of superannuation. The bench further observed that the application for alteration in date of birth

The Apex Court, while setting aside High Court’s order, made an observation that a person could not be summoned and detained in absence of a crime registered against him as the same would be violative of natural principles of justice. In the instant case, the petitioner first approached Andhra Pradesh High Court and sought for relief against any arrest in absence of a notice under Section 41A of Code of Criminal Procedure. Earlier, his wife had lodged a complaint under Section 498A of Indian Penal Code. Even after the High Court passed an order in his favor, he had been forcibly taken and detained by the police officers. In furtherance to this, he filed a contempt case alleging the non-compliance of High Court order. The police officer who arrested him had been held guilty of contempt and later sentenced to three months of imprisonment. However, the same had been set aside by the division bench on the ground that no crime had been registered. The bench also placed reliance on the directions issued in the case of Arnesh Kumar v State of Bihar. The bench backed its order by observing that in absence of crime record, the question of arresting the writ petitioner would not arise. The Supreme Court, while hearing the appeal, observed that there had also been clear cut violation of directions issued in D.K. Basu v State of West Bengal. The bench reiterated the directions issued in the aforesaid cases and held that prima facie reason would be violation of basic principles instead of no crime being registered against the petition. The bench, however, modified the sentence awarded by the court from three months to 15 days of the responsible police officers. The post Summoning and detaining order should be backed by reasonable crime registered against a

Maitreyi Choalla, a student of Gujarat National Law University explains the nuances of Amendment of Pleadings under Order VI, Rule 17 of Civil Procedure Code, 1908 bstract In most cases, a country’s judicial system is designed to uphold the rule of law. Considering this principle, parties in a civil suit enjoyed unrestricted access to modify their pleadings under Order VI Rule 17 of the Indian Civil Procedure Code, 1908. Concerns were brought to the Courts that such modifications or amendment of pleadings harmed the opposite party as well as slowed down the process of civil proceedings, resulting in piling up of cases. As a result, the Code of Civil Procedure (Amendment) Act, 1999 had removed this clause, However, this move witnessed a negative reaction by both law professionals and general populace. Therefore, the Code of Civil Procedure (Amendment) Act, 2002 had reinstated the same, albeit with a caveat. This study aims to explore these changes and assess the scope and judicial interpretation of amendment of pleadings in Civil procedure with a doctrinal legal research method by using primary sources like cases, statutes, legal commentary and reports. Keywords- Amendment of Pleadings, Civil Procedure Code 1908 Introduction The principle followed in Civil Procedural Law is that the Court procedures and rules are designed to achieve substantial justice. Order VI Rule 17 is an example of such procedural law that is designed to serve justice to the parties by giving them a chance to amend their pleadings where it appears to be necessary. The word ‘pleading’ in ‘amendment of pleadings’ can be understood by Order VI Rule 1 of the Civil Procedure Code(CPC), 1908. It defines a Pleading broadly `as a plaint or a written statement.[1] While a Plaint is a formal statement filed by a Plaintiff to substantiate his claim, similarly a

The Apex Court, while allowing the appeal, made an observation that an employee who made false declarations or suppressed material facts, like his involvement in a criminal case, should not be entitled to continue in service or be appointed as a matter of right. In the instant case, the employee had been employed by the Rajasthan Rajya Vidyut Prasaran Nigam Limited. At the time of employment, he had submitted a declaration during document verification wherein he admitted that neither any criminal case had been pending against him, nor had he been convicted by any court of law in a criminal case. Later, upon scrutiny, it had been found that he had been convicted in a criminal case and consequently had been terminated. Aggrieved by the termination order, the employee approached the High Court and challenged the order. The High Court relied upon the verdict given in the Avtar Singh Case [(2016) 8 SCC 471], quashed the termination order, and directed the reinstatement of employee along with consequential benefits. Thereafter, the employer approached the apex court where the employee-respondent contended that he had been extended the benefit provided under Section 12 of the Act, 1958 wherein a person is immune from disqualification owing to his conviction. The bench rejected the contention on the ground that the immunity could not be enjoyed in cases of false declaration which had been made by the employee-respondent. The bench further explained that even in case of acquittal, the person could not claim an appointment, as a matter of right, which he lost due to false declaration or concealment of facts. Moreover, it had been observed that the issue did not involve question of employee’s involvement in a dispute or whether he had been acquitted, rather, it revolves around the creditworthiness/credibility of employee. The employee by

The Delhi High Court, while hearing a Public Interest Litigation, issued notice against Google Pay as it had been alleged that its acts amounted to unauthorized access and storage of users Aadhar details. In the PIL, the petitioner alleged that Google Pay, which acts like a united payment interface for all the banks, violates most vulnerable right of individuals’ safeguarded under Article 21 of the Constitution of India. Further, the petitioner alleged that the unauthorized access and storage by the application also violated Aadhar Act 2016, Banking Regulations Act 1949, and the Payments and Settlement Systems Act 2007. The petitioner, through his counsel, contended that the payment interface has not been registered or received license under the Payments and Settlement Act, 2007 in order to legally conduct business of payments and transactions. Moreover, information received from Reserve Bank of India stated that Google Pay had not attained the status of a registered bank, financial institution, or co-operative bank under the Act of 1949. It also had been submitted that the business activities of Google Pay had been operating in contravention of banking as well as payment laws. Even in the terms and conditions of the application, the petitioner pointed out that the company mentioned to store the payment instruction details of users. However, the UIDAI did not receive any application from Google Pay to allow it to access, store, or use users Aadhar details. The authority did not even receive any intimation from RBI regarding the permission to access the bank details of users, submitted petitioner. For the aforesaid issue, the Delhi High Court has issued notices and listed the matter for the month of November, 2021. The post Delhi HC issues notice in a plea seeking action against Google Pay’s acts contravening Article 21 appeared first on LexForti Legal

The Attorney General for India, KK Venugopal, through a letter granted sanction to initiate criminal contempt proceedings against Ajeet Bharti, for the derogatory words used against the Supreme Court and its esteem judges, in a YouTube video which released on June 24, 2021. He further used the terms “scurrilous”, “vituperative”, and “highly derogatory” to remark the contents of the video. The video, which intended to denigrate the reputation of judiciary and raised allegations of abuse of power, bribery and favoritism, had been viewed by almost 1.7 lakh persons. The consent had been granted in furtherance of a letter written to the Attorney General to sought for his consent to initiate criminal contempt proceedings under Section 15 of Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 r/w Rule 3(c) of the Rules to Regulate Proceedings for Contempt of the Supreme Court, 1975. The Attorney General expressed its concern towards the image of Indian judiciary and stated that regardless of individual’s motive, he had been educated enough to know the consequences of his actions. The statements and remarks so made were sufficient enough to lower the image of judiciary in the eyes of general public. Throughout the video, previously settled precedents by the Supreme Court had been mocked at, stating that many of the high-profile cases had been shut down at the instance of other authorities and the judges were referred to as “sinners.” The post AG grants consent to initiate criminal contempt proceedings against Ajeet Bharti appeared first on LexForti Legal News & Journal.

The Apex Court, while hearing a review petition, observed that in case repeated cases and complaints are being filed against a spouse, the same can amount to “cruelty” for the purpose of seeking divorce under the Hindu Marriage Act. The bench further referred to such conducts and observed that even though repeated filing of cases occurred after the divorce petition, the husband would be eligible to seek divorce on ground of irretrievable marriage and cruelty. In the instant case, the wife left the company of her husband on the first day of marriage. Upon her refusal to stay with her husband, the latter filed for a divorce on the ground of cruelty. The trial court allowed the divorce petition, and later, the same had been restored by the High Court. Subsequently, the wife preferred a review petition questioning the jurisdiction of High Court to allow the decree of divorce, and the same had been allowed. The bench noted that after the filing of divorce petition, the respondent-wife had resorted to filing multiple cases in courts, including disciplinary proceedings against her husband who worked as an Assistant Professor, made representation before his college to initiate disciplinary proceedings, sought information about her husband’s remarriage, abused the process of RTI. Moreover, the respondent-wife lodged a criminal complaint under Section 494 of Indian Penal Code. The bench observed that such continued acts displayed disintegration of marital unity and parties’ marriage. Further, it stated that continuous allegations and litigative proceedings amounted to cruelty. The bench placed reliance on a number of precedents and explained legislature’s reluctance in introducing irretrievable breakdown as a ground for divorce. It further observed that families are arranged on the idea of mutual expectation of support, respect and amity, which had been missing in the instant case. The Supreme Court therefore,