THIS ISSUE
The government’s sledgehammer approach to legal aid benefits neither access to justice nor the public purse, says Geoffrey Bindman
Alec Samuels discusses challenging service charges
Masood Ahmed reports on the interpretation & application of the ‘additional amount’ under Pt 36
Early cash; ADR: agree it, do it; eternally privileged; look, no boarding card
John McMullen provides an update on the automatic transfer principle & its effects
Peter Stevens traces the recent history of compensation awards for employee inventors
Nearly 60% of expert witnesses believe judges should have powers to permanently disqualify experts who don’t understand their role.
The main challenge law firms face with e-billing is the way in which they record their time, according to a report.
The Junior Lawyers Division (JLD) has warned that the Solicitors Qualifying Exam (SQE) ‘poses significant risks to the standing and credibility (both domestically and internationally) of the solicitor qualification’.
MOVERS & SHAKERS
Thomson Hayton Winkley—Jordan Wallace
Thomson Hayton Winkley strengthens family law team
Ward Hadaway—Barnaby Rosenthall
Construction lawyer returns to Ward Hadaway in Teesside role
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?
Copyright © 2026 LexisNexis
