header-logo header-logo

Legal UK looks to Oz following trade deal

16 June 2021
Issue: 7937 / Categories: Legal News , Profession , Commercial , Brexit
printer mail-detail
Lawyers have welcomed the UK-Australia trade deal but warned ‘practical barriers’ still exist.

The main elements of the trade deal, which could provide a template for future deals, were agreed this week and cover market access for services professionals, tariff-free goods, a cap for 15 years on tariff-free agricultural products and more work visas for people under the age of 35. A final agreement in principle will be published in the coming days. Trade between the UK and Australia is currently worth just £13.9bn and £5.4bn worth of services but the deal is seen as a gateway to the UK joining the Trans-Pacific Partnership.

Law Society president I Stephanie Boyce said the deal could create opportunities for legal professionals.

‘The two countries already have a strong foundation given the long-standing relationship between Australian and the UK legal regulators, representative bodies and professionals,’ she said. 

‘However, there are still practical barriers that prevent the realisation of the full benefit of trade in legal services between our countries. These difficulties increase costs for clients; limit international opportunities for local lawyers; and reduce the skills transfer and contribution to the local market, particularly for those without the support of larger organisations.

‘Before the negotiations, we were clear that it would be beneficial for the legal sector to have a greater variety of business structures—such as the UK LLP—available in both jurisdictions, greater recognition of professional qualifications, regardless of route to qualification and without need for additional study, as well as increased mobility options.

‘On the free flow of data provisions and the ban on data localisation, we urge the UK government to consider the specific characteristics for legal services. Legal professionals follow their own professional obligations.

‘It is important that personal data processed by law firms are well-protected and that the fundamental rights of client confidentiality and legal professional privilege (LPP) are safeguarded in such trade agreements.’

Issue: 7937 / Categories: Legal News , Profession , Commercial , 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