header-logo header-logo

LawWorks reward stars of pro bono

29 April 2016
Issue: 7697 / Categories: Legal News
printer mail-detail

Students and law schools make a considerable pro bono contribution, and their efforts were celebrated at the tenth LawWorks & Attorney General Student Pro Bono Awards.

The awards, on 28 April, were presented by the Attorney-General, Jeremy Wright QC MP alongside LawWorks’ chair of trustees Paul Newdick, and head of legal at LexisNexis UK & Ireland, James Harper.

Nottingham Law School Legal Advice Centre, Nottingham Trent University won in the Best Contribution by a Law School category. The Queen Mary Legal Advice Centre won Best Contribution by a Team of Students for its SPITE Project, which advises people who have had private sexual images of themselves shared as well as campaigning on the issue. Manchester University’s Legal Advice Centre won Best New Student Pro Bono Activity for its Dementia Law Clinic. Fergus Lawrie, at the University of Strathclyde Law Clinic, won Best Contribution by an Individual Student. Lawrie, who oversees 37 student advisors, organised an exchange trip with the University of Miami Health Rights Law Clinic as well as developing with Miami an interactive way of training.

Nottingham Trent Law School’s Legal Advice Centre also scooped the inaugural Access to Justice Foundation Award which recognises the work of individuals and educational bodies in promoting and supporting access to justice, and charities which provide pro bono services.

University of Law won the Law School Challenge for raising the most funds for LawWorks and the Bar Pro Bono Unit. The London School of Economics were also recognised for their efforts as runners up.

James Harper said: “LexisNexis is incredibly proud to sponsor the LawWorks and Attorney General Student Pro Bono Awards. We are committed to supporting access to justice which we believe is a fundamental human right. We congratulate all those nominated and shortlisted for their valuable contributions and we are honoured to support the innovative and vital pro bono work being delivered across the country.”

Between April 2014 and March 2015, more than 2,000 students handled more than 11,000 queries at the 70 LawWorks clinics in law schools.

Issue: 7697 / 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