header-logo header-logo

Good for business

31 March 2011
Issue: 7459 / Categories: Legal News
printer mail-detail

Tim Boyce, dispute resolution partner at Osborne Clarke, says the proposals meant “good news for businesses that face claims by individuals who are supported by ‘no win no fee’ agreements and after-the-event (ATE) insurance.

These changes will keep costs down. There are uncertainties around the effect on the ATE insurance market for commercial claims. The offering becomes less attractive, but may still be of interest to businesses aiming to lay off some of their downside risk. It will almost certainly mean that ATE insurance providers will come under pressure to price their products competitively, which can only be a good thing”.
 

Issue: 7459 / Categories: Legal News
printer mail-details

MOVERS & SHAKERS

Freeths—Ruth Clare

Freeths—Ruth Clare

National real estate team bolstered by partner hire in Manchester

Farrer & Co—Claire Gordon

Farrer & Co—Claire Gordon

Partner appointed head of family team

mfg Solicitors—Neil Harrison

mfg Solicitors—Neil Harrison

Firm strengthens agriculture and rural affairs team with partner return

NEWS
Conveyancing lawyers have enjoyed a rapid win after campaigning against UK Finance’s decision to charge for access to the Mortgage Lenders’ Handbook
The Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) has launched a recruitment drive for talented early career and more senior barristers and solicitors
Regulators differed in the clarity and consistency of their post-Mazur advice and guidance, according to an interim report by the Legal Services Board (LSB)
The dangers of uncritical artificial intelligence (AI) use in legal practice are no longer hypothetical. In this week's NLJ, Dr Charanjit Singh of Holborn Chambers examines cases where lawyers relied on ‘hallucinated’ citations — entirely fictitious authorities generated by AI tools
The Solicitors Act 1974 may still underpin legal regulation, but its age is increasingly showing. Writing in NLJ this week, Victoria Morrison-Hughes of the Association of Costs Lawyers argues that the Act is ‘out of step with modern consumer law’ and actively deters fairness
back-to-top-scroll