header-logo header-logo

19 August 2016 / Steve Hynes
Categories: Opinion , Legal aid focus , Personal injury
printer mail-detail

Defending public interest lawyers

The public interest is dependent on firms like PIL and Leigh Day to hold government to account, says Steve Hynes

After months of rumours that staff were leaving the firm and that its founder Phil Shiner was buckling under of the pressure, Public Interest Lawyers (PIL) has, according to media reports, bowed to the inevitable and announced its closure.

The final nail in the coffin, it seems, was the announcement by the Legal Aid Agency (LAA) that it was terminating the firm’s contract. It is to be regretted that PIL has gone to the wall before the accusations made against it and its founder, Phil Shiner, could be substantiated or refuted.

PIL has been under a cloud since the Ministry of Defence (MoD) sent a dossier outlining alleged misconduct to the Solicitors Regulation Authority (SRA) in February last year. In June this year the SRA decided that Shiner and John Dickinson from PIL had a case to answer and referred the matter to the Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal (SDT).

Shiner has successfully applied for

If you are not a subscriber, subscribe now to read this content
If you are already a subscriber sign in
...or Register for two weeks' free access to subscriber content

MOVERS & SHAKERS

Burgess Mee—Victoria Sterritt

Burgess Mee—Victoria Sterritt

Family law boutique expands London team with legal director hire

Ward Hadaway—Mike Gore

Ward Hadaway—Mike Gore

Firm enhances advisory capability with strategic risk specialist hire

Stewarts—Alexandra Lyons

Stewarts—Alexandra Lyons

Insurance and reinsurance specialist joins policyholder disputes practice as partner

NEWS
Some employment law controversies never disappear—they merely lie dormant
Artificial intelligence (AI) is transforming legal practice, but its successful adoption depends as much on culture as technology
The fallout from Lord Mandelson’s appointment and dismissal as UK ambassador to Washington raises profound questions about constitutional governance, accountability and political appointments
Pastries may be in the firing line while kebabs escape scrutiny, but the reality is far more nuanced
The Supreme Court’s decision in Dillon highlights a central tension in modern public law: rights may be recognised without being fully realised
back-to-top-scroll