header-logo header-logo

09 January 2019
Issue: 7823 / Categories: Legal News , Training & education , Profession , Data protection
printer mail-detail

Keeping up with consent

Consent underpins the legal regimes of both copyright and privacy, but consent is becoming increasingly elusive online. How do we determine what is protected and the extent to which it is protected? How do we safeguard privileged client materials? These and many other issues will be explored on UCL Faculty of Laws’ acclaimed two-day CPD course for lawyers and company executives who deal with personal data, IP or the media, on 11 and 12 February 2019. ‘Privacy and Data: Law and Practice’ features presentations from international cyber security experts, cryptographers, child protection experts, law enforcement experts, and internationally respected lawyers and policymakers. For more information, see here.  

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