header-logo header-logo

08 April 2016 / Ed Crosse
Issue: 7693 / Categories: Opinion , Litigation trends
printer mail-detail

Change for the better

istock_000009622275_web

It’s time for lawyers to take a constructive view about change, says Ed Crosse

When you talk to civil litigators in London, one topic that always comes up is the pace of change. We face constant shifts in the way that the courts operate and the rules to which we must adhere. The Civil Procedure Rules change every year, while new pilot schemes seem to launch every few months, introducing new ways of working for specific types of cases.

Yet standing still is not an option if London’s courts are to continue to be the forum of choice for domestic and international disputes. The realities of reduced funding for the justice system and increased competition both from arbitration and from other jurisdictions, means that practitioners and the courts need to embrace change. Only by engaging with this process will lawyers have an influence in ensuring that best ideas prevail and the unworkable are put aside.

Some of what is currently under consideration, such as yet higher court fees and fixed costs in cases

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

Gateley Legal—Caroline Pope & Bob Maynard

Gateley Legal—Caroline Pope & Bob Maynard

Construction team bolstered by hire of senior consultant duo

Switalskis—four appointments

Switalskis—four appointments

Firm expands residential conveyancing team with quadruple appointment

mfg Solicitors—Claire Pope

mfg Solicitors—Claire Pope

Private client team welcomes senior associatein Worcester

NEWS
What safeguards apply when trust corporations are appointed as deputy by the Court of Protection? 
Disputing parties are expected to take part in alternative dispute resolution (ADR), where this is suitable for their case. At what point, however, does refusing to participate cross the threshold of ‘unreasonable’ and attract adverse costs consequences?
When it comes to free legal advice, demand massively outweighs supply. 'Millions of people are excluded from access to justice as they don’t have anywhere to turn for free advice—or don’t know that they can ask for help,' Bhavini Bhatt, development director at the Access to Justice Foundation, writes in this week's NLJ
When an ex-couple is deciding who gets what in the divorce or civil partnership dissolution, when is it appropriate for a third party to intervene? David Burrows, NLJ columnist and solicitor advocate, considers this thorny issue in this week’s NLJ
NLJ's latest Charities Appeals Supplement has been published in this week’s issue
back-to-top-scroll