header-logo header-logo

Brexit fallout for legal profession

29 June 2016
Issue: 7705 / Categories: Legal News , Brexit , EU
printer mail-detail

Short term gain but long term pain predicted for lawyers

Law reform will “go on the back burner” as Brexit issues monopolise government time, lawyers have said.

As the fallout from the Leave vote continues, with markets in chaos and sterling at a 30-year low against the dollar, litigation reforms are likely to stall. According to NLJ columnist Professor Dominic Regan, of City University, “the disruption will inevitably impede the reform process”.

“While some changes will be implemented, bolder measures such as the abolition of damages for soft tissue injury are drifting into 2018.”

Writing in NLJ this week, consultant editor David Greene, senior partner at Edwin Coe, says: “With [Michael] Gove leading the Brexit campaign, the Ministry of Justice (MoJ) has been in shut down for some months.

“That seems likely to continue until someone takes over in the coming weeks. Thereafter the MoJ will be full tilt on the machinations of leaving the EU. This may affect the proposed reforms in personal injury litigation, the Briggs reforms, and the Jackson proposals on fixed costs. It may also put onto the back burner any change in the regulatory regime for solicitors which is under review.”

Meanwhile, the outlook for the legal profession is sunny in the short term, with a post-Brexit “substantial upturn in business for lawyers” predicted several months ago by the Law Society, “to be followed by a downturn as international businesses moved operations to the EU capitals,” writes Greene.

“Gordon Nardell QC in discussions with the All Party Parliamentary Committee in April talked of the ‘legal bonanza’ following a Brexit vote. A study by Oxford Economics verifying the longer term loss estimated it at 4% per annum by 2030 or £1.7bn per annum.”

Lawyers have also pointed out that the referendum is not legally binding.

Doughty Street ChambersGeoffrey Robertson QC has said MPs could block the UK’s exit by refusing to repeal the European Communities Act 1972.

Rufus Ballaster, partner at Carter Lemon Camerons, says: “Given the lack of ability to see the nature of the exit, another vote (parliamentary, general election, Scottish and/or Northern Irish, or a fully blown ‘this is the way we could exit so are you sure’ UK wide referendum), could pull the country back from the brink.”

Issue: 7705 / Categories: Legal News , Brexit , EU
printer mail-details

MOVERS & SHAKERS

Carey Olsen—Kim Paiva

Carey Olsen—Kim Paiva

Group partner joins Guernsey banking and finance practice

Morgan Lewis—Kat Gibson

Morgan Lewis—Kat Gibson

London labour and employment team announces partner hire

Foot Anstey McKees—Chris Milligan & Michael Kelly

Foot Anstey McKees—Chris Milligan & Michael Kelly

Double partner appointment marks Belfast expansion

NEWS
The Ministry of Justice (MoJ) has not done enough to protect the future sustainability of the legal aid market, MPs have warned
Writing in NLJ this week, NLJ columnist Dominic Regan surveys a landscape marked by leapfrog appeals, costs skirmishes and notable retirements. With an appeal in Mazur due to be heard next month, Regan notes that uncertainties remain over who will intervene, and hopes for the involvement of the Lady Chief Justice and the Master of the Rolls in deciding the all-important outcome
After the Southport murders and the misinformation that followed, contempt of court law has come under intense scrutiny. In this week's NLJ, Lawrence McNamara and Lauren Schaefer of the Law Commission unpack proposals aimed at restoring clarity without sacrificing fair trial rights
The latest Home Office figures confirm that stop and search remains both controversial and diminished. Writing in NLJ this week, Neil Parpworth of De Montfort University analyses data showing historically low use of s 1 PACE powers, with drugs searches dominating what remains
Boris Johnson’s 2019 attempt to shut down Parliament remains a constitutional cautionary tale. The move, framed as a routine exercise of the royal prerogative, was in truth an extraordinary effort to sideline Parliament at the height of the Brexit crisis. Writing in NLJ this week, Professor Graham Zellick KC dissects how prorogation was wrongly assumed to be beyond judicial scrutiny, only for the Supreme Court to intervene unanimously
back-to-top-scroll