header-logo header-logo

Legal profession brainstorms Brexit

07 April 2016
Issue: 7693 / Categories: Legal News , Brexit
printer mail-detail

Law Society’s research suggests long term pain may follow short term gains

Lawyers could enjoy a short-term “Brexit bonanza” but would be disproportionately affected in the long-term, the Law Society’s chief executive has warned.

Law firms have been busy compiling advice in the run-up to the 23 June referendum. Herbert Smith, for example, has compiled a detailed briefing on the topic and Allen & Overy’s Global Law Intelligence Unit has published a paper providing a lawyer’s view on a broad range of associated legal issues.

Writing in NLJ this week, Catherine Dixon, chief executive of the Law Society, which does not hold a position on Brexit, says: “In the short term some solicitors could enjoy their widely trailed ‘Brexit bonanza’ as agreements are unpicked, contracts altered, new domestic rules written and the legal complexities of any changed relationship with the EU unravelled.

“However, based on an independent assessment we commissioned by Oxford Economics [The UK legal services sector and the EU], in the longer term a UK withdrawal is likely to disadvantage the legal services sector disproportionately when compared to other comparative areas of economic activity. This is due to the work we do for other sectors which are likely to be adversely affected themselves by Brexit.”

Lawyers—In for Britain, a group of British lawyers, published a detailed report last month setting out the case for EU membership. John Davies, Chairman, says: “Our conclusion is that the UK is stronger, safer and better off in the EU.”

However, this report was criticised by Lawyers for Britain, a group chaired by Martin Howe QC, which is campaigning for Britain to leave the current treaties and build a new relationship with the EU which preserves our trading links. They argue that the prime minister’s renegotiation changes little and reveals the UK’s lack of influence and the inability of the EU to reform. They argue that the EU reforms poor laws too slowly or not at all and that there are many pitfalls to EU regulatory harmonisation.

Deloitte’s latest quarterly survey of chief financial officers found that a potential Brexit is the top concern for Britain’s biggest businesses at the moment, yet 53% have “no plans” in place.

Issue: 7693 / Categories: Legal News , Brexit
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