THIS ISSUE
Assessing the early legacy of Uber v Aslam: Charles Pigott examines the courts’ approach since the landmark judgment
Andrew Pavlovic discusses the SRA’s approach to tackling toxic workplace environments
Sex entertainment venues: Zia Akhtar reports on local authority licensing powers & the ‘nil cap’ policy
Andrea De Biase predicts the UK will ratify the Singapore Convention
Judiciary on the warpath? Dominic Regan provides an update on client contributions & a costs management bombshell on the horizon
Mark Pawlowski takes a close look at The Verdict, a classic film portraying the lawyer hero in popular culture
Marc Thorley investigates appeals on questions of fact
The intervention of the European Court of Human Rights in the government’s Rwanda asylum plan was a rare success, as Neil Parpworth explains
Nick Dent discusses whether the recent amendment of the Road Vehicles Regulations is enough to deter drivers from using their phones
How should a left behind parent proceed when their child is wrongfully retained abroad? Mani Singh Basi reports
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
