header-logo header-logo

17 October 2018
Issue: 7813 / Categories: Legal News , Brexit
printer mail-detail

Mutual access plea for Brexit deal

Risk of a no deal Brexit casts uncertainty on EU & UK lawyers

The ‘shape of a deal’ on Brexit is now ‘clear’, prime minister Theresa May has said, despite disagreement over the Northern Ireland backstop stalling talks.

Since May’s speech to Parliament this week, however, European Council president Donald Tusk has said ‘we need new facts’ and called for ‘concrete proposals to break the impasse’. He said he had no ‘grounds for optimism’ a deal will be reached at this week’s EU summit.

Meanwhile, it has emerged that about 700 registered European lawyers (RELs) would lose the right to practise in December 2020, under a ‘no deal’ Brexit. Moreover, no new REL applications could be made from 11pm on the day of exit, 29 March 2019. RELs and EU lawyers seeking to practise in England and Wales would therefore have to requalify as a solicitor or barrister or become Registered Foreign Lawyers. Last week the government published its latest technical notice on leaving the EU, ‘Providing services including those of a qualified professional if there’s no Brexit deal’.

The regime for regulating RELs will end, subject to a transitional period lasting to the end of December 2020. Under the regime, RELs register with the Solicitors Regulation Authority (SRA) and can provide the full range of legal services, including working as a sole practitioner.

The SRA has written to all RELs, explaining how they will be affected. Applications received but still being processed on exit day will be honoured, and applicants allowed to practise until December 2020.

It said RELs will be able to qualify as a solicitor in England and Wales through the Qualifying Lawyer Transfer Scheme (QLTS) and the new Solicitors Qualifying Examination, due to be introduced at the earliest in autumn 2020.

Christina Blacklaws, president of the Law Society, said firms would incur ‘a significant amount of expense’ to find ways around the issue. The government’s notice also provided no answers for UK lawyers in the EU, who could face different barriers in each of the 30 EU/EEA countries, she said. ‘That’s why we continue to call on the government to put mutual market access at the heart of its Brexit priorities.’

Issue: 7813 / Categories: Legal News , Brexit
printer mail-details

MOVERS & SHAKERS

Freeths—Rachel Crosier

Freeths—Rachel Crosier

Projects and rail practices strengthened by director hire in London

DWF—Stephen Hickling

DWF—Stephen Hickling

Real estate team in Birmingham welcomes back returning partner

Ward Hadaway—44 appointments

Ward Hadaway—44 appointments

Firm invests in national growth with 44 appointments across five offices

NEWS
The Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 transformed criminal justice. Writing in NLJ this week, Ed Cape of UWE and Matthew Hardcastle and Sandra Paul of Kingsley Napley trace its ‘seismic impact’
Operational resilience is no longer optional. Writing in NLJ this week, Emma Radmore and Michael Lewis of Womble Bond Dickinson explain how UK regulators expect firms to identify ‘important business services’ that could cause ‘intolerable levels of harm’ if disrupted
Criminal juries may be convicting—or acquitting—on a misunderstanding. Writing in NLJ this week Paul McKeown, Adrian Keane and Sally Stares of The City Law School and LSE report troubling survey findings on the meaning of ‘sure’
The Serious Fraud Office (SFO) has narrowly preserved a key weapon in its anti-corruption arsenal. In this week's NLJ, Jonathan Fisher KC of Red Lion Chambers examines Guralp Systems Ltd v SFO, in which the High Court ruled that a deferred prosecution agreement (DPA) remained in force despite the company’s failure to disgorge £2m by the stated deadline
As the drip-feed of Epstein disclosures fuels ‘collateral damage’, the rush to cry misconduct in public office may be premature. Writing in NLJ this week, David Locke of Hill Dickinson warns that the offence is no catch-all for political embarrassment. It demands a ‘grave departure’ from proper standards, an ‘abuse of the public’s trust’ and conduct ‘sufficiently serious to warrant criminal punishment’
back-to-top-scroll