header-logo header-logo

06 August 2025
Issue: 8128 / Categories: Legal News , Cybercrime , Legal aid focus , Cyber , Technology , Criminal , Data protection
printer mail-detail

LAA leak worse than thought

The Legal Aid Agency (LAA) data breach is worse than previously thought, it emerged last week

In an update to the LAA notice on the leak, the Ministry of Justice announced ‘further investigations have shown that some data going back to 2007 may have been accessed as well as information linked to the partners of applicants. Previously we stated the data went back to 2010’.

The cyberattack was discovered on 23 April, and initially thought to affect providers. On 16 May, it was also found to have exposed clients’ personal and financial details.

An injunction is in place against sharing any of the data.

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