header-logo header-logo

Halsbury Legal Awards: the winners

17 September 2015
Issue: 7668 / Categories: Legal News
printer mail-detail

Legal excellence is once again celebrated at the annual awards ceremony

Former Attorney General Dominic Grieve QC MP, the Independent Reviewer of Terrorism David Anderson QC, and future guru Professor Richard Susskind were the 2015 headline winners of this year’s Halsbury Legal Awards, held in association with NLJ.

The awards, presented by comic Miles Jupp at a gala celebration in London this week, celebrate excellence in the law across the entire legal profession.

Dominic Grieve received the Rule of Law Award in recognition of his support for human rights and commitment to principle above party politics.

As Legal Personality of the Year, David Anderson was commended for his independence and headline-making reports in a notoriously difficult area, while Richard Susskind picked up the Future of Law Award for his ability to tap into the profession’s zeitgeist. Professor Michael Zander QC was also applauded for his lifetime contribution.

Speaking at the awards, Christian Fleck, managing director for LexisNexis UK & Ireland, said: “The Halsbury Legal Awards are designed to champion the truly exceptional across all sections of the legal profession.

“We’re here not only to applaud the record-breaking achievements and commercial successes of the legal industry, but also to celebrate the spirit of Halsbury—the whole of the law and the legal community connected—encapsulated so well by tonight’s winners.”

Serjeants’ Inn Chambers and Ropewalk Chambers scooped the London and Regional Chambers of the Year Awards respectively, while the award for Law Firm of the Year (more than 50 employees) went to Brachers, and Crossland Employment Solicitors scooped Law Firm of the Year (fewer than 50 employees).

The Innovation Award went to the National Archives for its revolutionary approach to managing and organising legislation while Just for Kids Law was honoured for its commitment to children in crisis.

Emeritus Professor Andrew Ashworth QC was distinguished for his superlative Academic Contribution.

The full list of winners can be found here.

Issue: 7668 / Categories: Legal News
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