header-logo header-logo

Home Login E-newsletter About us
19 August 2016 / Steve Hynes
Categories: Opinion , Legal aid focus , Personal injury
printer mail-detail

Defending public interest lawyers

© Copyright LexisNexis 2026. All Rights Reserved.

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

Read All
Sponsored by
Haynes Boone—Jeremy Cross

Haynes Boone—Jeremy Cross

Firm strengthens global fund finance practice with London partner hire.

DWF—Stephen Webb

DWF—Stephen Webb

Partner and head of national planning team appointed

mfg Solicitors—Nick Little

mfg Solicitors—Nick Little

Corporate team expands in Birmingham with partner hire

NEWS
Read All
NLJ this week: When post-breach events rewrite damages claims
Contract damages are usually assessed at the date of breach—but not always. Writing in NLJ this week, Ian Gascoigne, knowledge lawyer at LexisNexis, examines the growing body of cases where courts have allowed later events to reshape compensation
NLJ this week: Supreme Court redraws unfair prejudice rules
The Supreme Court has restored ‘doctrinal coherence’ to unfair prejudice litigation, writes Natalie Quinlivan, partner at Fieldfisher LLP, in this week' NLJ
NLJ this week: ‘Joe Donor’ ruling exposes dangers of unregulated conception
The High Court’s refusal to recognise a prolific sperm donor as a child’s legal parent has highlighted the risks of informal conception arrangements, according to Liam Hurren, associate at Kingsley Napley, in NLJ this week
NLJ this week: CILEX warns Mazur ruling must spark reform
The Court of Appeal’s decision in Mazur may have settled questions around litigation supervision, but the profession should not simply ‘move on’, argues Jennifer Coupland, CEO of CILEX, in this week's NLJ
NLJ this week: Conditional job offers carry hidden risks for employers
A simple phrase like ‘subject to references’ may not protect employers as much as they think. Writing in NLJ this week, Ian Smith, barrister and emeritus professor of employment law at UEA, analyses recent employment cases showing how conditional job offers can still create binding contracts
Copyright © 2026 LexisNexis
back-to-top-scroll