WORLD’S MOST EXPENSIVE DIVORCE LAWYERS

Each party to marriage ties the knot with other with great hopes and expectations. Each party to the marriage has a right to enjoy the company of other for the solace of his life. But sometimes circumstances may arise and parties want to dissolve their marriage due to some reason or another. A divorce lawyer can help someone who wants to divorce his/her spouse. There may be some NGOs which can provide free legal advice. One can also seek a legal adviser online. In most of the cases, one has to pay a fee for hiring a lawyer for divorce. There are many divorce advocates in the world who charges a huge fee from their clients for lawyer consultation. Let’s have a look on the world’s most expensive divorce lawyers-

1. Laura Wasser- 

Laura Allison Wasser is a partner at Los Angeles-based firm Wasser, Cooperman & Mandles, established by her father, Dennis Wasser which deals in family law cases related to marriage, divorce and child custody. She joined the firm after graduating from Loyola Law School in 1996.She is one of the most expensive lawyers as she Charges $850 for an hour and requires a $250,000 retainer. It is alleged that Wasser typically only represents people who are worth more than $10 million. Laura Wasser has represented a number of high-profile celebrities in the past, including Johnny Depp in his divorce from Amber Heard, Britney Spears, Mariah Carey, Kim Kardashian West, Ryan Reynolds, Heidi Klum and more. She even represented Jolie in her divorce from Billy Bob Thornton in 2003.Angelina Jolie has hired Wasser to represent her as she has filed a divorce suit against her husband Brad Pitt where the main issue is related with custody of their 6 children.

2. Sandra Davis-

Sandra Davis is a partner and head of the Family Department of the London-based firm Mishcon de Reya, Davis charges £610 an hour and has represented celebrity clients such as the Princess of Wales, Jerry Hall, Thierry Henry and Tamara Mellon. With her 30 years of experience. Sandra specializes in complex high-net-worth and ultra-high-net-worth cases. She is a Fellow of International Academy of Matrimonial Lawyer. London Super Lawyers directory even named her one of the Top 100 Lawyers and one of the Top 50 women.

3. Fiona Shackleton (Baroness Shackleton of Belgravia)- 

Fiona Sara Shackleton is a partner in one of the London’s leading family law firms, Payne Hicks Beach which she joined in 2001. She has represented members of the British Royal Family and legendary Beatle, Sir Paul McCartney, and many more celebrities. Shackleton charges £640 for an hour plus £5k for an initial meeting.

4. Ira E. Garr- 

Ira E. Garr works with Slipe Garr, P.C. a New York based firm which deals with matrimonial issues. Garr has been listed as one of the “Best Lawyers in America” since 2008.Most of his clients are generally high net worth individuals and often celebrities, it is no wonder that Murdoch chose Garr to represent him in the $11.2 billion divorce suit with her third wife.

5. Liz Vernon-

Liz Vernon is a partner at family law firm Clintons based in London. She has over 20 years of experience. She has dealt with high profile clients from sports, media and entertainment fields and their spouses like Slavica Ecclestone and Karen Parlour.

What is Intellectual Property Assignment Agreement (IPAA)

Intellectual Property (IP) is one of the most emerging arenas in law because of its economic exploitation. Some entities or persons may reap the benefits out of an IP on their own while some assign it to other entities or persons in consideration of royalty. The Intellectual Property Assignment Agreement facilitates the whole process by assigning the concerned IP to other through a contractual agreement. These are also known as Rights Agreements/IP Transfer Agreements.

Assignment
The term “assignment” refers to the transfer of rights vested in the owner of an IP to other entity or person. It is basically a sale and purchase of IP rights. The IP may include copyrights, patents, trademarks, industrial designs or geographical indications. The person who assigns the IP is known as the Assignor and the person to whom such IP is assigned is known as the Assignee. The assignment is different from licensing as the former facilitates the transfer of ownership of such IP for indefinite or limited time period while the latter allows the transfer of limited rights for a particular amount of time and ownership is not actually transferred.

Standard Terms & Conditions of an IPAA
• It should be in writing,
• Requirements of a valid contract to be fulfilled under the Indian Contract Act, 1872,
• Identification of the assignor and assignee,
• Definitions containing general and technical terms used throughout the contract,
• Duly mention the IP to be assigned,
• It must specify all the rights (economic and moral) and obligations assigned to the assignee,
• Mention the liability and warranty in regards to the ownership of such IP,
• Indemnification in case the IP is infringed on a third party’s rights,
• The time duration of such assignment,
• Territorial extent of the assignment,
• Governing law over such agreement and dispute resolution,
• Payment of Stamp Duty on such assignment,
• A lump-sum amount or royalty payable to the assignor,
• Attachment of the list and description of IPs to be assigned.

Important Points to Remember
• Registration of IPAA for copyright is not compulsory.
• IPAA for the geographical indication is expressly prohibited by law.
• Non-Payment of Stamp Duty does not invalidate the agreement.

Statutory Law References
Sec. 2(h) of the Indian Contract Act, 1872
Sec. 2(4) and 23 of the Indian Stamp Act, 1899
Sec. 18, 19 & 19A of the Copyright Act, 1957
Sec. 69 & 70 of the Patents Act, 1970
Sec. 37 - 43 of the Trademarks Act, 1999
Sec. 24 of the Geographical Indications of Goods (Registration and Protection) Act, 1999
Sec. 30 of the Designs Act, 2000
Sec. 21-24 of the Semiconductor Integrated Circuits Layouts Design Act, 2000
Sec. 16 & 18 Plant Varieties and Farmers Rights Act, 2001

Important Do(s) and Don't(s)
• Before IPAA, it is better to conclude a Non-Disclosure Agreement in regards to the concerned IP,
• Register the IPAA with the concerned IP office with respect to the type of IP,
• For assignee, it is feasible to analyze the risks and due diligence involved in the assignment of IP so as to verify its ownership,
• Perform a valuation of the IP to be assigned in order to obtain a fair market price.
• Above all, lawyer consultation is necessary to draft the agreement so as to review the legalities.

SC’s landmark decision to Protect Online Freedom of Speech

Before 2015, no sane person would have thought that the knees of Section 66A of the Information Technology Act, 2000 would go weak and that too against one of the most powerful persons of Maharashtra. In March 2015, Supreme Court of India struck down Sec. 66A which restricted the freedom of speech and expression under Art. 19(1)(a) while upholding the people’s right to know.

How it all began

In 2012, two girls allegedly posted some negative comments against the total shutdown in Mumbai in pursuance to the death of Shiv Sena leader the late Bal Thackeray. After their arrest, a Bristol University astrophysics graduate, Shreya Singhal, filed a PIL before the Supreme Court of India where she challenged the undue restrictions on online speech which had been acknowledged under Sec. 66A of the Information Technology Act, 2000.

Section 66A reads as follows: “Any person who sends by any means of a computer resource-

a)      any information that is grossly offensive or has a menacing character; or

b)      any information which he knows to be false, but for the purpose of causing annoyance, inconvenience, danger, obstruction, insult shall be punishable with imprisonment for a term which may extend to three years and with fine.”

Contentions of the Parties to the Case

Section 66A was not originally enacted with the statute of 2000 but inserted by way of 2009 amendment. The petitioner’s contention circled around the fact that restrictions under Sec. 66A are in clear violation of the right to free speech and expression enshrined under Art. 19(1)(a) of the Constitution. Causing of annoyance, hatred, danger, obstruction, insult, ill-will, insult, criminal intimidation, injury, inconvenience are not hit by the conditions of Art. 19(2). The public has the right to know various kinds of views on a particular topic. However, it was countered by the respondents with the contention that the legislature is in the best position to understand and cater to the needs of the people.

The Judgment

The Apex Court placed focus upon what is the content of “freedom of speech and expression”. It stated three concepts in this regard – first is a discussion, second is advocacy and third are incitement. Discussion and advocacy form the core of Art 19(1)(a) but when it effects incitement, Art. 19(2) comes into play. However, what may be offensive to one may not be to other. It observed that the whole discussion centered around public disorder and ‘reasonable restrictions’ can be interpreted on the lines of Chintaman Rao v. State of Madhya Pradesh, [1950] S.C.R. 759, Mohd. Faruk v. State of Madhya Pradesh & Ors., [1970] 1 S.C.R. 156. It also stated that written words causing inconvenience, danger, annoyance, etc. does not count as an offense itself and are vague and overbroad. The court further observed that it is bound by the law laid down in Ram Manohar Lohia’s case [1960] 2 S.C.R. 821 and held that “Section 66A is unconstitutional also on the ground that it takes within its sweep protected speech and speech that is innocent in nature and is liable therefore to be used in such a way as to have a chilling effect on free speech and would, therefore, have to be struck down on the ground of overbreadth.” The bench of Justice J Chelameswar and Justice Rohinton F Nariman further supplemented their findings by stating that government’s assurance to prevent misuse of the provision will not matter as governments come and go.

Surprisingly, a data released by National Crime Records Bureau (NCRB) in 2015 showed that 2,402 people were arrested under Sec. 66A in 2014.

Right to be forgotten- Kerala High Court asks Indian Kanoon to remove name of the rape victims from Judgements

In 2017, a rape victim filed a petition before the Kerala High Court to pass an order directing the online web portal ‘indiankanoon.com’ to strike off her name published in a Kerala High Court judgment on its website and also prevent her name from being visible in the search results of Google, Yahoo, etc.

Facts:
The name of the rape victim appeared online on ‘indiankanoon.com’ in the judgment of the Kerala High Court which was passed in regards to her. Moreover, the judgment appeared in the general search results of Google and Yahoo.

Legal Contention:
She stated that the publication of her name was without authorization/prior permission from the court or her which is in clear contravention of the mandate provided under Rule 5 of the Information Technology (Reasonable Security Practises and Procedures and Sensitive Personal Data or Information) Rules, 2011. Her grievance extended to the search results of Google and Yahoo.
According to her, the publications violated her right to privacy and right to a dignified life enshrined under Art. 21 of the Constitution of India as it has diminished her job prospects and social life which has brought upon further shame and destitution upon her. Furthermore, the essence of Section 228A of IPC is also diluted.

Section 228A of the Indian Penal Code:
Under Section 228A of IPC, disclosure of the identity of a rape victim may amount to two years imprisonment and fine. She also contented her ‘right to be forgotten’. In State of Karnataka v. Puttaraja AIR 2004 SC 433, the Apex Court of India held that the names of the rape victims should not be mentioned in court cases keeping in mind the social object of preventing social victimization or ostracism of the victim and hence, in line with Sec. 228A.

What is “Right to be Forgotten”?
The roots of this phrase ‘Right to be Forgotten’ can be traced back to the ‘Right to Oblivion’ in French Jurisprudence. The rationale of such a principle was to give an opportunity to the offenders to object against the publication in regards to their crimes and strike off their names for an effective social integration. This right went into practice in the European Union and Argentina as well and has been seen as a tool for social integration and development of a person. In Vasunathan v. Registrar General, 2017 SCC OnLine Kar 424, Karnataka High Court, while directing its registry to remove the name of the victim from being reflected in the public domain, observed, “This is in line with the trend in Western countries of ‘right to be forgotten’ in sensitive cases involving women in general and highly sensitive cases involving rape or affecting the modesty and reputation of the person concerned.”
Recently, a tussle has been going on between France and Google over the ‘right to be forgotten’ where France is trying to impose such rule upon Google to censor its search results. In India, there are no provisions under Information Technology Act, 2000 or any other statutes which prevents Google or any other search engine to enforce the ‘right to be forgotten’ as the scope of public domain is pretty scary. It will wrangle anything out from the world. To prevent such anomalies, the weapon of Judicial Activism is a requirement.

Order
Recognizing the ‘right to be forgotten’ and confidentiality of her identity under Sec. 228A of IPC, Justice Shaji P. Chaly of the Kerala High Court directed the web portal indiankanoon.com to remove her name from its website. However, no such direction has been passed towards Google and Yahoo.

Victimization under 498A IPC

When a complaint, true or false, is filed by a wife against her husband and against relatives of her husband in a police station, police officials usually call both parties to settle down the dispute or pass on the complaint to the women cell so that both parties can try to reach a compromise to the satisfaction of complainant. 

If the parties are still unable to solve the dispute amicably, then the women cell usually direct parties to go for mediation. If the dispute remains unresolved, then the matter comes back to women cell then police officials register it as FIR. 

Important points: -

1. If the accused is not arrested, then he should file for anticipatory bail as early as he can.
2. If any of the accused is arrested, then they can apply for regular bail.
3. If the arrest warrants are issued, the accused must surrender as soon as he can before the police. It becomes easy to defend the case in the court if accused has willfully surrendered.
4. Sometime these accusations can be placed out of sheer outburst of the sense of revenge, and wife may realize the futility of her actions with the passage of time, therefore husband shouldn’t put more efforts to expedite the judicial process and must wait for things to settle down and let them take its normal course.  


Statutory law Reference.

1. 498A IPC

Prevention of Arrest

1. When a FIR is lodged against husband and his relatives, one should apply for an anticipatory bail for all involved. Even if  one of accused gets the anticipatory bail, others can substantiate their claim on that basis
2. Try to put your case for mediation with the help of your lawyer.
3. Try to schedule your case for Lok Adalat hearing with the help of your lawyer so that it may lead to a compromise.


4. Try your best to negotiate and settle the dispute with the accuser and her parents.
5. If the husband and his relatives have not committed any offense such as demand for dowry or physical abuse, then he has every right to defend his rights and court take cognizance of unsubstantiated accusations.