header-logo header-logo

THIS ISSUE
Card image

Issue: Vol 161, Issue 7493

08 December 2011
IN THIS ISSUE

Tough economy contributes to marital breakdowns

Jon Robins signs off his series on life without legal aid

Geraldine Morris calls for reform of the law surrounding cohabitation

Tim Spencer-Lane locks down the flaws of the DOLS

David Renton examines how disputes over immigration status affect unlawful deduction of wages claims

Keith Patten reviews the implications of Dawkins upon liability in negligence & evidentiary burdens

Do the government’s proposals on justice & security challenge the principle of open justice, asks Tim Suter

Michael Tringham reports on the dangers of cutting & pasting

Alan Sheeley forecasts the future of cross-border litigation

Legal Services Commission v Henthorn [2011] EWCA Civ 1415, [2011] All ER (D) 235 (Nov)

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