THIS ISSUE
An unusual case has served up questions about vicarious liability & the gig economy. Ross Fletcher looks at the takeaways
Secretive talks, tense negotiations & an ultimatum narrowly averted tragedy, writes William Gibson
Criminals love them, but now enforcement agencies have the statutory tools to fight back, writes Nick Barnard
A recent case offers hope for victims of APP fraud. Jon Felce & Rosie Wild explain the ruling and its ramifications
David Burrows reflects on the tangled legacies we leave behind
David Greene on the debate about the future of litigation funding at home & abroad
Steps have been taken to regulate the imprisonment of pregnant offenders, but do they go far enough, asks Zoë Chapman
From the Turing Test to closed AI models, Ian McDougall sets out what lawyers need to know about AI
Vicarious liability and the gig economy may not be a match made in heaven, certainly not from the perspective of Deliveroo riders and other workers
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
