header-logo header-logo

Large companies worry most about spiralling litigation

16 October 2008
Issue: 7341 / Categories: In-House , Legal News , Legal services
printer mail-detail

Financial services sector tops list of industries expecting increased litigation

Research by global law firm Fulbright and Jaworski LLP has found that up to 43% of large organisations expect an increase in disputes, with some in the financial services sector expecting a 50% increase.

Although business conditions have changed dramatically since the responses were submitted in July, Chris Warren-Smith, head of international financial services disputes at Fulbright, says the 2008 survey marks an interesting tipping point.

“The warning signs were already out there that the economy was about to shift into bear mode, a concern reflected by in-house lawyers who are bracing themselves for an increase in legal disputes,” he says. “The larger the company, the more concerned it is about the prospects of facing more litigation.”

Warren-Smith says the survey also highlighted concern about the one size fits all approach adopted by the Financial Services Authority (FSA).

“The problems have been most acute within the investment banks, followed by retail banks and building societies,” he says. “The concern the whole industry has is that there will be a backlash and that it won’t be managed in such a way that it allows for the independent financial advisers, wealth managers and stockbrokers to operate efficiently.”

Meanwhile, Tony Brown of Bivonas Solicitors says there is a strong case for outsourcing regulatory work to nonconflicted specialist law firms.

“Within four months of the director of enforcement at the FSA announcing that the body had three insider dealing prosecutions with more in the pipeline, world banking is on its knees,” he says.

Brown adds that one solution would be to outsource enforcement to the private sector, in particular to sub-contract the enforcement to non-conflicted specialist law firms. “This already happens in Australia and is extremely effective,” he adds.

A privatised external agency given an incentive to secure results would, Brown feels, be the best way to bring transgressors to heel and shake off the “civil service culture of regulation”.

Issue: 7341 / Categories: In-House , Legal News , Legal services
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