header-logo header-logo

24 January 2008
Issue: 7305 / Categories: Legal News , Legal services , Training & education , Profession
printer mail-detail

NEW CHAIR FOR VOS

Bar Council immediate past chairman, Geoffrey Vos QC, has been appointed chairman of the trustees of the Social Mobility Foundation (SMF)

Bar Council immediate past chairman, Geoffrey Vos QC, has been appointed chairman of the trustees of the Social Mobility Foundation (SMF), the charity which helps young people from less privileged backgrounds join the major professions and business. It provides internships in more than 60 different firms and corporations for high-achiev­ing A-level students from low income backgrounds. Vos worked closely with Lord Neuberger to produce the Entry to the Bar Working Party’s report on access to the profession, which looked at the social factors that may deter bright candidates from particular back­grounds from applying to the Bar.

MOVERS & SHAKERS

Thomson Hayton Winkley—Jordan Wallace

Thomson Hayton Winkley—Jordan Wallace

Thomson Hayton Winkley strengthens family law team

Ward Hadaway—Barnaby Rosenthall

Ward Hadaway—Barnaby Rosenthall

Construction lawyer returns to Ward Hadaway in Teesside role

Bird & Bird—Shahin Baghaei

Bird & Bird—Shahin Baghaei

Bird Bird hires leading legal transformation expert

NEWS
Legal aid deserts leave almost one in four without adequate access to justice
The Solicitors Regulation Authority (SRA) has warned solicitors and law firms that using artificial intelligence does not alter their professional obligations, amid concerns over inaccurate legal material and client confidentiality
From forgotten interest claims to case-management appeals, a string of procedural developments offers useful—and occasionally cautionary—lessons for practitioners

Jonathan Fisher KC highlights that it now accounts for around 40% of criminal offences, with roughly 70% involving technology, and argues that the UK cannot simply prosecute its way out of the problem. Detection, investigation and prosecution all require improvement, while different fraud types demand tailored responses.

How forcefully can a litigant criticise a public authority before robust advocacy crosses the line into unreasonable conduct? 
back-to-top-scroll