header-logo header-logo

EY & Riverview Law: clients will determine success of new venture

16 August 2018
Issue: 7806 / Categories: Legal News , Legal services , Profession
printer mail-detail
nlj_7806_news_1

The purchase of legal services ‘disruptor’ Riverview Law by business behemoth EY may not be as big a deal as suggested, according to John Gould, partner at Russell-Cooke. The purchase was widely reported as significant in terms of the global accountancy firm’s advance into legal services territory. Writing in NLJ online, however, Gould suggests the transaction may be ‘better understood as an off-the-shelf purchase of backoffice functions’ and questions whether it will ‘make EY more competitive than the in-house innovations of existing large law firms. Perhaps the real story here is that what really matters is who holds and can sustain an overall relationship with each client,’ he says. 

MOVERS & SHAKERS

Kingsley Napley—Tristan Cox-Chung

Kingsley Napley—Tristan Cox-Chung

Firm bolsters restructuring and insolvency team with partner hire

Foot Anstey—Stephen Arnold

Foot Anstey—Stephen Arnold

Firm appoints first chief client officer

Mewburn Ellis—Aled Richards-Jones

Mewburn Ellis—Aled Richards-Jones

IP firm welcomes experienced patent litigator as partner

NEWS
Solicitors are installing panic buttons and thumb print scanners due to ‘systemic and rising’ intimidation including death and arson threats from clients
Ministers’ decision to scrap plans for their Labour manifesto pledge of day one protection from unfair dismissal was entirely predictable, employment lawyers have said
Paper cyber-incident plans are useless once ransomware strikes, argues Jack Morris of Epiq in NLJ this week
In this week's NLJ, Robert Hargreaves and Lily Johnston of York St John University examine the Employment Rights Bill 2024–25, which abolishes the two-year qualifying period for unfair-dismissal claims
Writing in NLJ this week, Manvir Kaur Grewal of Corker Binning analyses the collapse of R v Óg Ó hAnnaidh, where a terrorism charge failed because prosecutors lacked statutory consent. The case, she argues, highlights how procedural safeguards—time limits, consent requirements and institutional checks—define lawful state power
back-to-top-scroll