header-logo header-logo

Legal profession supports Ukraine

02 March 2022
Issue: 7969 / Categories: Legal News , International justice , Constitutional law
printer mail-detail

Lawyers condemn ‘act of war’ and warn of exposure to sanctions

Lawyers have expressed solidarity with Ukraine and called on the government to assist refugees.

In a joint statement, Bar leaders in England and Wales, Northern Ireland and Ireland and the Faculty of Advocates in Scotland, unequivocally condemned the invasion as an ‘act of war’ and ‘a gross violation of international law’.

Law Society president I Stephanie Boyce said: ‘The Law Society stands in solidarity with the Ukrainian people, the Ukrainian National Bar Association and the Ukrainian Bar Association.

‘We also stand with the Russian people who oppose their government’s illegal invasion of Ukraine, and lawyers who are defending the rule of law in the region.’

Meanwhile, lawyers have been advised to keep a close eye on client exposure to Russian sanctions, including in supply chains.

Pinsent Masons senior associate Stacy Keen, a specialist in sanctions, said any ramping-up of sanctions is likely to affect a far wider range of businesses than previous sector-based measures, hitting not just UK oil exploration and production companies but other strategic sectors such as the information, communications and digital technologies sectors.

‘Businesses should plan on the basis that the sanctions already announced are just the first wave,’ Keen said.

‘They should urgently be identifying not just Russian and Ukrainian business partners but also non-Russian/Ukrainian counterparties that have a significant exposure to these countries.’

However, reports this week that Foreign Secretary Liz Truss briefed MPs that London law firms are delaying sanctions against Russian oligarchs prompted raised eyebrows in the profession.

Human rights barrister Jessica Simor QC tweeted: ‘Law firms can’t hold it up. Only a court could. Are there any court orders? I doubt it.’

Boyce responded, on behalf of the Law Society: ‘It’s the job of solicitors to represent their clients, whoever they may be, so that the courts act fairly. 

‘This is how the public can be confident they live in a country that respects the rule of law―unlike Putin’s tyrannical regime. Solicitors are highly regulated and are not allowed to bring spurious objections to processes―if they challenge the government’s actions, it’s because they think the government is at risk of breaking its own rules.’

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