header-logo header-logo

25 June 2018
Issue: 7799 / Categories: Legal News
printer mail-detail

Transparency rules

CILEx Regulation is asking its member for their views on price transparency. Its consultation, published last week, sets out plans to address the 2016 Competition and Markets Authority (CMA) report, which highlighted how a lack of information and price transparency was hindering competition in the legal market. Other legal professional regulators are conducting similar consultation exercises. Helen Whiteman, CILEx Regulation CEO, said: ‘We want our rules to allow those firms we regulate to present information in a clear and simple way that consumers can access and engage with. We have applied our principles-based approach, rather than be prescriptive.’ The consultation closes on 3 August 2018.

Issue: 7799 / Categories: Legal News
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