THIS ISSUE
Experts must comply with the fundamental duty to assist the court, says Mark Solon
Now that the dust has settled on Guide Dogs for the Blind v Box, Alexander Learmonth QC explains why it is good news for both consumers & solicitors
George Sim discusses the pros & cons of single joint accountancy experts
Those working in creative fields with unpredictable earnings may face a greater challenge when claiming for life-altering injuries: Suzanne Trask sets out the key steps for painting an accurate picture
Malcolm Bishop QC looks back at the moral mores of 1960s Britain & questions the fairness of the trial of Stephen Ward
Veronica Cowan reports on the ongoing strikes by criminal barristers: what will it take to repair a broken system?
Directing the jury on the standard of proof & meaning of ‘sure’ is no easy task, writes Paul McKeown
The justice system cruelly stacks the odds against the neurodivergent, says Jon Robins
What rights do gamete donors have in relation to their biological children? Fiona Lyon reports on the latest from the courts
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
