header-logo header-logo

28 May 2021
Issue: 7934 / Categories: Legal News , Profession , International justice , Legal services
printer mail-detail

NLJ this week: Unlikeable clients

49933
Should lawyers choose clients that match their own beliefs? They should not, says John Gould, senior partner at Russell-Cooke, in this week’s NLJ.

He refers to the furore around David Perry QC accepting work from the Hong Kong Department of Justice earlier this year. Perry later bowed out. But what about the cab rank rule? And a lawyer’s independence from their client?

Gould writes: ‘Barristers are “hired guns”. It is not necessary (or even desirable) that they express anything but the position of their clients. They argue and represent others for money. They are not soldiers in their own country’s cause.’

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