header-logo header-logo

27 April 2022
Issue: 7976 / Categories: Legal News , Profession
printer mail-detail

Law reform extended

The Law Commission is extending its timetable for choosing its 14th Programme of law reform after receiving about 500 responses covering nearly 200 possibilities for law reform
It launched a consultation in 2021, asking for suggestions for reforms to explore. However, Sir Nicholas Green, Chair, Law Commission, said this week the Commissioners have decided ‘now is not the time to set in stone a list of projects which will determine a significant percentage of our work over the next four to five years and beyond. We are concerned that to do so will reduce our capacity to respond flexibly to law reform needs arising in the near future’. Instead, it will continue work on its existing programme.
Issue: 7976 / Categories: Legal News , Profession
printer mail-details

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