Legislation is a powerful tool - especially if you are the ruler of a small and rich country.
Take the case of the Sultan of Brunei.

The Sultan has a younger brother, Prince Jefri Bolkiah, who supposedly embezzled around $ 12 billion during his 13 years as finance minister.

In 2000, the two brothers reached an out-of-court settlement that compelled Jefri to pay back $ 4.5 billion in assets, including properties in Paris, Singapore, Malaysia, Indonesia, Japan, Britain and the US.
It seems that the London-based Jefri never honored the agreement, while continuing his $ 400,000 a month lifestyle.

In the latest court ruling by Chief Justice Mohammad Saied, Prince Jefri has been ordered to sell his London mansion (St John's Lodge in Regent's Park), the five-star New York Palace Hotel in Manhattan, the Bel-Air Hotel in Los Angeles, a property at Place Vendome in Paris, a mansion in Singapore and an undisclosed quantity of cash and jewels.
To ensure this, the monarch changed the Brunei constitution and gave himself the same status as the Pope – he is infallible.

“His Majesty the Sultan ... can do no wrong in either his personal or any official capacity.”
As a result, Prince Jefri has no legal options to appeal the latest ruling – unless he becomes Sultan.

To prevent Prince Jefri blabbing to the press, the following was degreed:
“No person shall publish or reproduce in Brunei or elsewhere any part of proceedings ... that may have the effect of lowering or adversely affecting directly or indirectly the position, dignity, standing, honor, eminence or sovereignty of His Majesty the Sultan.”

A creative legal remedy for sibling rivalry......

Few legal firms believe in marketing and PR.
This might cost them dearly in the long run for several reasons.

1. The market has changed.
   As long as there are people, there will be conflicts and lawyers will be able to make a living. However, clients are becoming more and more savvy – Internet and blogs make juridical information available to everyone.A lawyer has to realize that his/her potential clients will be critical and want to keep posted each step of the way.
   
2. Having a sterling reputation is not enough.
   Many lawyers still think that clients will come to them.
   Being well known and having a wonderful record of accomplishment will not have a pull effect.
   Law firms must actively seek out and search for clients. Just waiting for the knock on the door will not do it.
   
3. Websites are a necessity.
   Many law firms still have no website at all or minimal one that isn’t being updated.
   They still assume that having a contact page will suffice. Law firms must invest in professional websites that reflect the capabilities and track record of the law firm.
   
4. Lawyers still think that they provide first and foremost professional services and ignore the client’s demand for full and upfront disclosure of pricing, procedures and risks.
   
5. Law firms must realize that they are selling a product: namely themselves.
   Lawyers must therefore market themselves to the public.
   
6. Competition.
   Many well-established law firms ignore market research on competitors.
   This might cost them dearly in the long run.
   
7. Branding.
   Law firms are notorious for ignoring branding.
   They are reputation-focused, building on publications and won cases.
   All professionals are only as good at their last success and maintaining a flawless rack record in law is almost impossible due to the many outside factors that can influence a case or procedure.
   Lawyers should therefore be brand-conscious and build and nurture their brand.

What are the lessons that lawyers can learn from marketing?

1. Market research: identify potential clients, to keep abreast of changes in culture and trends that could influence legislation, to analyze the competition.
   
2. SWOT analysis: identify strengths, weaknesses, opportunities and threats.
   
3. Positioning: position the law firm in the market, communicating its expertise, track record and price structure.
   
4. Branding: trade name, logo, website, corporate colors etc.
   
5. Promotion: newsletters, updates, sponsoring, adopting a cause.
   
6. Public relations: communicate with the public, with clients, with industry players.
   
7. Media: trade magazines, local newspapers/radio/TV, national media and (depending on the expertise) international media.

Law can be cheesy - literally.

Take the case of the Belgian “Kaasmakerij Passendale” a producer of cheese.
This company has been producing cheeses for decades.
The cheeses have distinctive forms, colors and structures. Due to the uniqueness of each of the cheeses, Passendale obtained trademark and brandname protection.

A Belgian competitor started production of the cheese “Boerengoud” (farmer’s gold).
This cheese uncanny resembles the “Passendale” one in form, color, shape and even logo.
Passendale started legal procedures claiming that Boerengoud is too similar in form, structure and color and therefore misleading for consumers.
The court decided that that the cheeses are visually so similar that there is a high chance of consumer confusion.
Boerengoud cannot be sold and all existing Boerengoud have to be withdrawn from the market.

Why is this kind of brand protection so important?

1) it makes the product identifiable for the consumer
2) it reflects a quality standard or specific product properties
3) it builds consumer confidence
4) it makes a statement (product image)
5) it builds consumer loyalty

The Holloway case goes civil

The case of the missing American teenager Natalee Holloway has entered a new phase.
After being unsuccessful in finding their daughter and bringing the people they hold responsible to criminal justice, her parents have filed a civil lawsuit.
The wrongful-death lawsuit (filed in Manhattan's state Supreme Court) seeks unspecified monetary damages.

The court papers present a partly speculative version of what happened after the young people left the casino and went to a bar called Carlos 'n' Charlies in the early hours of May 30, 2005.
The court papers claim that an intoxicated Holloway left at 1:30 am with Joran van der Sloot and the Kalpoe brothers.
Several of Holloway's friends saw her in the car with the youths and asked her to get out, which she didn’t.

The papers further claim that Joran:
a) willfully caused personal injury to Natalee as a result of his sexual assault upon he;
b) wrongfully, unlawfully and intentionally detained and directly restrained Natalee Holloway;
c) deprived her of her personal liberty through force and/or threat of force;
d) abducted Natalee Holloway and prevented her from returning to the custody of her parents.

As a result of this imagined sexual assault, the last hours of her life were marked “by torment, terror and debasement.”
The lawsuit includes Joran’s father since he supposedly breached his duty to Natalee by failing to take steps to prevent Joran from sexually assaulting Natalee Holloway.
According to the court papers, Paulus van der Sloot enabled his son’s violent and anti-social lifestyle since he supposedly went on the night of the disappearance with his underage son to a casino to play poker.
It was at that casino that the younger Van der Sloot met Holloway, again according to the filed lawsuit.

I find this lawsuit rather bizarre.
Suing Dutch citizens (who have never been indicted for a supposed crime that could have taken place in Aruba) in a New York court doesn't make a lot of sense.
I am convinced that the overworked courts of New York will throw the case out.
Moving the proceedings to Aruba would be logical, but unproductive as well.
Aruba is not an American territory and is ruled by the Dutch legal system.
In criminal cases, there is no plea bargaining, jury, etc.
There are also no huge settlements awarded in civil lawsuits.
Using a civil procedure to get a "conviction" (as was done in the O.J. Simpson case) is impossible under Dutch law.

What still puzzles me, is that Natalee's parents never sued her high school, although she went missing during her supervised senior class graduation trip of the Mountain Brook High School.

And as the Strategic Task Force (consisting of Aruban government and tourism authorities) correctly pointed out: "A civil case cannot compel the van der Sloots to return to New York to appear, nor is it clear that if the case is accepted, and a judgment imposed, that ... it will hold force in Aruba."