header-logo header-logo

18 February 2016
Issue: 7687 / Categories: Legal News
printer mail-detail

Briggs Review conference

Practitioners are invited to voice their views on the future of civil justice at a conference with Lord Justice Briggs, who is currently leading the Civil Courts Structure Review.

The Westminster Legal Policy Forum conference, in London on 23 May, will discuss costs, funding and new court structures. Sir Rupert Jackson’s proposal for fixed costs for claims up to £250,000 will be another key topic.

Briggs LJ will be joined by Professor Rachael Mulheron, from the Civil Justice Council, and NLJ columnist Professor Roger Smith, the former director of Justice.

More information: The future of civil justice in England and Wales - costs, funding and new court structures

Issue: 7687 / Categories: Legal News
printer mail-details

MOVERS & SHAKERS

Thomson Hayton Winkley—Jordan Wallace

Thomson Hayton Winkley—Jordan Wallace

Thomson Hayton Winkley strengthens family law team

Ward Hadaway—Barnaby Rosenthall

Ward Hadaway—Barnaby Rosenthall

Construction lawyer returns to Ward Hadaway in Teesside role

Bird & Bird—Shahin Baghaei

Bird & Bird—Shahin Baghaei

Bird Bird hires leading legal transformation expert

NEWS
Legal aid deserts leave almost one in four without adequate access to justice
The Solicitors Regulation Authority (SRA) has warned solicitors and law firms that using artificial intelligence does not alter their professional obligations, amid concerns over inaccurate legal material and client confidentiality
From forgotten interest claims to case-management appeals, a string of procedural developments offers useful—and occasionally cautionary—lessons for practitioners

Jonathan Fisher KC highlights that it now accounts for around 40% of criminal offences, with roughly 70% involving technology, and argues that the UK cannot simply prosecute its way out of the problem. Detection, investigation and prosecution all require improvement, while different fraud types demand tailored responses.

How forcefully can a litigant criticise a public authority before robust advocacy crosses the line into unreasonable conduct? 
back-to-top-scroll