header-logo header-logo

Home Login E-newsletter About us
10 January 2014 / Simon Goldie
Issue: 7589 / Categories: Features , Profession
printer mail-detail

Public knowledge

© Copyright LexisNexis 2026. All Rights Reserved.
web_goldie

The Big Four accountancy firms engage with government, why not law firms, asks Simon Goldie

Part of the Big Four accountancy firms’ business objectives is to engage with government. Each partnership has a public affairs function. Much to the chagrin of Public Accounts Committee chair Margaret Hodge, they provide staff on secondment to work at HM Revenue & Custom and HM Treasury. At least one firm offers free help to HM Opposition too. They also have tax policy directors whose brief includes commenting on tax legislation. This ongoing engagement serves several purposes: it provides the Big Four with an understanding of government policy, it gives them the opportunity to improve legislation and it can be said to be for the common good.

A different approach

Law firms tend to take a different approach. They may engage with politicians via a public affairs agency or rely on their representative body, the Law Society, to speak out for the profession. Generally they shy away from running a public engagement programme.

After all the changes that the

If you are not a subscriber, subscribe now to read this content
If you are already a subscriber sign in
...or Register for two weeks' free access to subscriber content

MOVERS & SHAKERS

Read All
Sponsored by
London Solicitors Litigation Association—John McElroy

London Solicitors Litigation Association—John McElroy

Fieldfisher partner appointed president as LSLA marks milestone year

Kingsley Napley—Kirsty Churm & Olivia Stiles

Kingsley Napley—Kirsty Churm & Olivia Stiles

Firm promotes two lawyers to partnership across employment and family

Foot Anstey—five promotions

Foot Anstey—five promotions

Firm promotes five lawyers to partnership across key growth areas

NEWS
Read All
NLJ this week: Divorce ‘nuclear weapon’ freezes assets but entangles outsiders
Freezing orders in divorce proceedings can unexpectedly ensnare third parties and disrupt businesses. In NLJ this week, Lucy James of Trowers & Hamlins explains how these orders—dubbed a ‘nuclear weapon’—preserve assets but can extend far beyond spouses to companies and business partners 
NLJ this week: What counts as ‘rent’? Court says labour alone won’t do
A Court of Appeal ruling has clarified that ‘rent’ must be monetary—excluding tenants paid in labour from statutory protection. In this week's NLJ, James Naylor explains Garraway v Phillips, where a tenant worked two days a week instead of paying rent
Your magistrates’ court needs you!
Thousands more magistrates are to be recruited, under a major shake-up to speed up and expand the hiring process
NLJ this week: Freed but failed—justice system leaves the innocent empty-handed
Three men wrongly imprisoned for a combined 77 years have been released—yet received ‘not a penny’ in compensation, exposing deep flaws in the justice system. Writing in NLJ this week, Dr Jon Robins reports on Justin Plummer, Oliver Campbell and Peter Sullivan, whose convictions collapsed amid discredited forensics, ‘oppressive’ police interviews and unreliable ‘cell confessions’
NLJ this week: Clarity on whistleblowing, settlements and tribunal limits
A quiet month for employment cases still delivers key legal clarifications. In his latest Employment Law Brief for NLJ, Ian Smith reports that whistleblowing protection remains intact even where disclosures are partly self-serving, provided the worker reasonably believes they serve the ‘public interest’ 
Copyright © 2026 LexisNexis
back-to-top-scroll