THIS ISSUE
William Gibson explains how a high-society pool party brought down a government
In the first of two articles on anonymisation in family proceedings, David Burrows considers what is meant by judicial comity across all courts
Maurice MacSweeney explains the main elements funders take into consideration
Roger Smith muses on breakouts, scapegoats & political expediencies
Delays in the processing of statutory wills are causing serious issues with estate distribution: Gareth Williams proposes a simple solution
Janna Purdie provides a handy guide to cross-border service & jurisdiction clauses
Using foul language on social media is fine but posting dishonest or discriminatory material online is not, according to guidance issued by the Bar Standards Board (BSB)
Cafcass has this week activated its prioritisation protocol for the London area following discussions with judges in West London, East London and the Central family courts
NLJ's latest Charities Appeals Supplement has been published in this week's issue
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
