header-logo header-logo

28 November 2018
Issue: 7819 / Categories: Legal News , Legal services
printer mail-detail

No ‘hired guns’, SRA warns

Solicitors have been issued with a stern warning not to become ‘hired guns’ when engaged in litigation. The Solicitors Regulation Authority (SRA) this week refreshed its Balancing Duties in Litigation paper on professional misconduct. While solicitors have a duty to act in the best interests of clients, they also have obligations to the courts, third parties and to the public interest, and must act with integrity and uphold the rule of law. SRA chief executive Paul Philip gave as an example of misconduct ‘including clauses in non-disclosure agreements which seek to prevent lawful disclosure of harassment or discrimination’.

Issue: 7819 / Categories: Legal News , Legal services
printer mail-details

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