header-logo header-logo

THIS ISSUE

Issue: Vol 161, Issue 7467

26 May 2011
IN THIS ISSUE

Stephen Hockman QC Courting controversy: Parliament & the judiciary wrangle over privacy

Dominic Regan explains why Jackson is unstoppable

When does an employee owe fiduciary duties, asks Felicia Epstein

Jonathan Herring examines the courts’ approach to conflict in two children custody cases

Is the personal injury marketplace at odds with solicitor obligations? John Spencer investigates

David Cowan suggests that danger is looming in the social housing battleground of shared ownership

Jonathan Cohen provides an update on commercial name disputes

Claire Sanders examines the principles of freezing orders in matrimonial proceedings as highlighted by ND v KP

David Phillips & Emily Lew discuss the merits & limitations of the EU Mediation Directive

Martin Burns argues that greater promotion is the key to the future of mediation

Show
10
Results
Results
10
Results

MOVERS & SHAKERS

Thomson Hayton Winkley—Jordan Wallace

Thomson Hayton Winkley—Jordan Wallace

Thomson Hayton Winkley strengthens family law team

Ward Hadaway—Barnaby Rosenthall

Ward Hadaway—Barnaby Rosenthall

Construction lawyer returns to Ward Hadaway in Teesside role

Bird & Bird—Shahin Baghaei

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? 
back-to-top-scroll