Young lawyers might fancy the nine-to-five routine of corporate legal departments, but an ethical swamp awaits

Corporate in-house legal departments have become increasingly attractive to younger lawyers as they appear to offer decent wedge for considerably less stress than is on the cards at the coalmines of private practice.

But research released today suggests that while billing targets can be forgotten, in-house lawyers face mounting stress elsewhere as legal departments can be ethical grey zones.

According to a group of academics, young lawyers going in-house will face a growing and unresolved ethical minefield that can have them occasionally bordering on illegality.

The “appetite for legal risk,” says the research team from law schools at University College London and Birmingham University, “involves accepting, even welcoming, tolerance for conduct which may be, or even may be likely to be, unlawful”.

Leading the project were Professor Richard Moorhead, UCL’s director of the Centre for Ethics and Law and Birmingham University law lecturer Steven Vaughan.

They maintained that in-house lawyers increasingly find their corporate responsibilities were “sometimes in tension with the professional obligation to promote the rule of law and the guidance to solicitors that they must treat the public interest in the administration of justice as definitive of conflicts between professional obligations”.

Commented Morrehead:

“Our research and some anecdotal commentary suggest that the role of general counsel is under increasing pressure. Their professional ethical boundaries are not as well drawn as may be necessary for the increasingly sophisticated world of in-house work.”

Vaughan continued:

“The more-for-less challenge and the need to be commercial and influential within a business context can pose significant ethical challenges for in-house lawyers. They and their businesses are not always well prepared for such challenges.”

Other key findings from the research showed there was no shared sense of a correct approach to legal risk at in-house departments as general counsel were not clear or confident about their approach, or the best approach, to legal risk management.

Likewise, while objectivity and independence are necessary for risk assessment to be accurate and useful to businesses, they can conflict with the pressures on in-house lawyers to be commercial team players. According to the researchers, “there are overt pressures and implicit biases at work that may sometimes undermine objectivity”.

Over the next few months, the research team will hold a series of town hall-style meetings with general counsel and other in-house lawyers around the UK. They will also conduct a round of structured interviews and an on-line survey to expand their existing findings.

The post Research shows in-house lawyers pushed to the brink of illegality appeared first on Legal Cheek.

Massive global law firm will wave good-bye to six of its 18 qualifying former trainees as it continues poor retention rate run

Sino-Australian-English law firm giant King & Wood Mallesons — which offers 30 training contracts a year — will keep just 12 out of 18, or 66% of its qualifying lawyers this spring. Fifteen applied for newly-qualified (NQ) roles at the firm with 12 getting the nod.

The 12 will join several of the firm’s key practice areas, including corporate, finance, financial markets, employment, investment funds, intellectual property, real estate and litigation.

The international powerhouse — formed through the merger of Chinese market leader King & Wood, Australian giant Mallesons and the City of London’s SJ Berwin — has failed to break the 80% NQ retention mark since 2012, when it posted an uncharacteristic 100% rate.

Since then the firm has languished around the 70% mark posting 73% last autumn and 70% last spring.

This follows the announcement last week that CMS Cameron McKenna would be waving good-bye to 38% of its spring NQs with only 16 out of 26 staying at the firm.

Firm profile: King & Wood Mallesons [Legal Cheek]

The post Only 66% of qualifying lawyers to remain at King & Wood Mallesons appeared first on Legal Cheek.

From Glasto to the Isle of Wight, banks of portaloos hide a potential minefield of accidents and personal injury litigation, says England’s newest lavatory law specialist

Music festival hazards usually involve knee-high mud, rude campers (or these days “glampers”) and blow-your-bonce-off skunk. But one lawyer is warning young and old festival-goers alike of the perils of “toilet injuries”.

“Festival toilets by nature are hazardous,” extols Tristan Hallam, a partner at national law firm Slater & Gordon, “and, in more ways than one, should be approached with caution.”

Indeed, Hallam appears to be carving out a niche as the country’s leading specialist in lavatory law at a firm hell bent on creating the first household brand name in the UK legal profession.

According to this cutting edge lawyer with his hand on the chain, anything can happen when going to the bog at a festival — and pretty much none of it is good. And what’s more when something does go wrong, festival-goers are unlikely to have a clue about what to do next.

Analysing on his law firm blog on the multiplicity of triggers for potential lavatory litigation, Hallam turned to recent history. He highlights one rock-chick at the Leeds Festival — “unfortunately dubbed Poo Girl” — who was reluctant to leave her handbag unguarded after being a victim of theft at a previous gig.

“Upon a visit to the portable toilet,” related Hallam, “her bag tragically swung from her shoulder into the toilet. Because of the important contents of her handbag, she leaned in to retrieve her bag and got her shoulders wedged and was trapped headfirst in the toilet until fire-fighters could rescue her.”

As uncomfortable an experience as that undoubtedly was for Poo Girl, at least she survived. Which, sadly, is more than can be said for a young boy who died after suffering head injuries from an exploding septic tank in a festival lavatory.

In his blog, Hallam pointed out that questions of liability can be tricky when it all goes wrong in a festival bog.

“Where there are generally numerous contractors present,” he wrote, “it is initially difficult to see who the potential defendant is.”

However, the lawyer went on to point out that “many festivals are run to such a high standard that a single contractor will be used to provide toilet facilities”. He continued:

“Of particular importance, and vital in a claim, is in obtaining as much evidence post-accident of the hazard, witness statement from friends of member of the public, photographs and even and detailed entry in an accident book are all going to be incredibly useful is establishing a claim.”

So the next time you dash to the portaloos to escape the shrill sound of yet another has-been band trying to resurrect its career, remember to have law firm contact details tucked inside the Wellies.

The post Could festival toilets law be the hot new practice area of 2015? appeared first on Legal Cheek.

“There was nothing wrong with me being a lawyer, but I always knew there was another me, an Artist Me, lurking inside”

This lego creation of a red man climbing out of a grey man has been wowing visitors to the Old Truman Brewery, a gallery in east London.

Entitled ‘Self’, it is by a former lawyer at global law firm Winston & Strawn, Nathan Sawaya, who quit the law in 2004 to become a very successful lego artist.

The caption beneath it reads:

“Taking a leap is hard. I used to be a lawyer. There was nothing wrong with me being a lawyer, but I always knew there was another me, an Artist Me, lurking inside. Then one day I decided to let the Artist Me out, and I never looked back.”

Sawaya (pictured below) is exhibiting in London until Sunday before continuing his ‘Art of the Brick’ world tour.

The post Lawyer uses lego to reveal the artist inside appeared first on Legal Cheek.

Knife fight looms between three branches of the profession following release of inflammatory Bar Council report that borders on calling for the clock to be turned back

A glut of solicitor-advocates is “dumbing down” Crown Court advocacy standards and legal executives should be barred from appearing in the higher courts, according to a report from leading barristers.

In what many will view as a desperate bid to turn back the clock to an earlier era of protectionism, the report calls for an outright ban on legal executives advocating at higher levels.

“We do not believe that legal executives should have rights of audience in the Crown Court,” says the report bluntly.

The bombshell was launched by the Bar Council’s criminal justice reform group, chaired by the former circuit judge Geoffrey Rivlin QC. It takes aim at a system that has been in place for the best part of two decades, since the Courts and Legal Services Act 1990 smashed the bar’s monopoly on higher court advocacy rights.

The bar’s recent report went on to pour opprobrium on legal executives:

“If this right continues, in all cases where a legal executive intends to appear as an advocate in the court, the client should be advised of their right to use a solicitor or barrister to represent them, together with clear notification of the contrasting qualifications for the work.”

But the Rivlin report did not stop at casting doubts over the quality of legal executive higher court advocates — it also fired a couple of barrels in the direction of a much greater threat, solicitor-advocates.

The report lambasted “in-house advocates” — its coded language mainly used to denote solicitors or, less frequently, barristers working at law firms — as being of inferior quality and appearing in court because of the financial imperatives of their bosses.

Said the report:

“We believe that the experience of the courts is clear: that some advocates, usually (but not invariably) in-house advocates, are not sufficiently competent to handle the cases in which they appear. Indeed, we have heard a number of accounts of them frankly admitting this to be so, in some cases explaining to their colleagues in the case that they were ordered to do the case for the financial reasons of their firms.

“The appearance of any advocate who is unable to cope with the demands of the case is liable seriously to disadvantage the client and create enormous difficulties for the court.”

The report backed earlier Bar Council lobbying of the Ministry of Justice “to provide and enforce a requirement that solicitors should always advise their clients in writing of (amongst other things) the reasons for recommending an in-house advocate and their right to instruct advocates independent of their firm”.

Meanwhile, the rise of a creature known as the “plea-only” advocate intensely riled Rivlin. The report described the phenomenon as a move “towards dumbing down within the profession”.

According to the report, “some qualified lawyers may not be competent to deal with criminal trials, but might nevertheless appear in court to deal with those who plead guilty”.

Allowing the practice, said the report: “betrays a serious misunderstanding of the role of the advocate, and carries with it a significant risk to the administration of justice. Pleas of guilty can be just as important and onerous as trials.” It goes on:

“There are cases where the demands on the advocate when a defendant pleads guilty can be even greater than the demands of a trial … Very often, particularly in the Crown Court, when people plead guilty to indictable offences, (or are sent there for sentence by magistrates) their liberty is at stake, and they may be at risk of years of imprisonment.”

Despite taking a comprehensive whipping from the Bar Council’s report, the Law Society — the organisation that represents the nearly 160,000 solicitors in England and Wales — seemed reluctant to go in to bat for high court solicitor-advocates. A spokesman said simply:

“This is an interesting report, but the bulk of the recommendations are more relevant for the Bar Council and Bar Standards Board to look into.”

On the other hand, the Chartered Institute of Legal Executives (CILEx) geared up for a scrap with the bar. “It is unfortunate CILEx was not consulted in the drafting of this report,” a spokesman told Legal Cheek, maintaining the Rivlin paper contained crucial “inaccuracies” regarding legal executives.

Cilex struck back by calling for a generally level playing field in Crown Court advocacy work:

“We have no objection to our advocates’ clients being advised of their rights to use a solicitor or barrister, as long as the same rule applies to all, and chartered legal executive advocates are offered as an alternative to solicitor advocates and barristers,” the spokesman said, adding:

“We believe both clients and the criminal justice system benefit equally from having practitioners who are appropriately qualified and have been assessed as to their competence to undertake the work they do.

“Client choice in advocacy should be encouraged in a well-managed and regulated way. Restricting advocacy rights to a small group of professionals will not guarantee quality, trust or confidence.”

Read the Criminal Justice Reform Group’s report in full below:

Rivlin Report Final March 2015

The post Bar blasts solicitors for ‘dumbing down’ Crown Court advocacy — and calls for legal execs to be barred appeared first on Legal Cheek.

Some institutions are charging 150% more than the rate of inflation for the two courses required to qualify as solicitors and barristers

Law schools are charging as much as 150% above the historic rate of inflation for the two vocational courses required to qualify as lawyers in England and Wales, exclusive Legal Cheek research has revealed.

Fees over the last 15 years for the Legal Practice Course (LPC) for solicitors and what is now the Bar Professional Training Course (BPTC) for barristers have rocketed, with students in London being particularly hard hit.

London’s City University law school and BPP Law School’s London branch lead the pack in outstripping inflation rates.

City University’s LPC fee is currently pegged at £13,500, or 150% more than what the cost would have been if it had simply risen in line with inflation.

In pure cash terms — in 2000-01, the law school’s LPC fee was £6,400, which would have risen to only £9,600 in line with inflation. However, the actual fee is £3,900 higher than that figure.

Likewise, the fee for BPP’s old Bar Vocational Course in 2000 was set at £7,950. If it had kept up with inflation, the fee today would be around the £12,000 mark; however, the current fee is a wafer 20 quid shy of £18,000.

Those two are not the only institutions to have imposed inflation-busting course fee rises. The University of Law’s current BPTC fees are nearly 120% above inflation when compared with its 2002 fees, while its LPC fee is slightly less than 110% above that rate.

City University has also dramatically increased its BPTC fees — by 130% more than the inflation rate since 2000 to £17,500.

The figures emerged from Legal Cheek’s scouring of old law school websites. Through the miracle of technology, our researchers have been able to pinpoint the fee pages of their sites from as long ago as the turn of the century.

Analysis shows that the London law schools have more of a taste for outpacing inflation than their regional counterparts — but that’s not to say provincial players are keeping to cost-of-living rises.

The current BPTC fee of £13,800 at Nottingham Law School is 86% above the inflation rate since 2001-02. While that institution’s current LPC fee of £10,900 is about 60% above the mark.

Northumbria University’s law school — which in 2000 boasted that had the lowest LPC fee of any top institution with a charge of £5,200 — has a current fee for the solicitor course of £9,400. That increase is also about 60% more than inflation.

The University of Law declined to comment on any element of its fee structuring, while City also opted not to issue a comment; however, BPP’s top official did address the issue.

“BPP’s courses in this area have changed significantly over the last decade,” law school dean Peter Crisp told Legal Cheek.

“Law firms and students now demand the highest standards and our LPC programmes have been adapted to incorporate a range of new skills required by the top practices. As a result, the majority of the leading law firms choose to send their trainees to BPP Law School.

“Similarly, the BPTC course delivers far more than the minimum requirements set out by the Bar Council and the Bar Standard Board. As a result, more BPP students attain a pupillage than from any other law school according to the BSB.”

The post Revealed: how law school fees have spiralled far beyond rate of inflation since the millennium appeared first on Legal Cheek.

Survey of top 100 practices shows major threat to profits in battle for top talent against backdrop of continuing client pressure on fees

A salary war for top talent is about to break out among City legal practices, law firm finance directors are predicting.

A survey released today shows that a third of top law firm money men rated staff poaching as a significant threat to profitability as Britain’s economic recovery continues.

Thomson Reuters research of finance director concerns at the UK’s top 100 law firms demonstrated how quickly the fears of poaching and salary inflation have arisen; last year, only 4% of those surveyed rated the issue as a threat.

“The spectre of star lawyers or whole teams defecting to rivals — and a substantial portion of their client base going with them — is starting to stalk City firms once again,” said Samantha Steer, head of the “large law segment” at Thomson Reuters UK Legal.

She continued:

“Team defections can also tend to lead to faster pay inflation for lawyers across the firms concerned. This has not really been an issue for most big law firms at all in recent years but now it’s a prospect, which is clearly rattling many Top 100 finance directors

“If key staff who have just sat tight and ridden out the rounds of redundancies and pay freezes as firms cut costs now decide the time is right to move on, taking their teams and their clients with them, it could seriously damage firms’ profits and reputation.”

The researchers pointed out that in a bid to retain key staff, law firms could be forced to launch promotion drives and boost remuneration packages at a time when corporate clients continue to apply the thumbscrews on fees.

Indeed, downwards pressure on rates was seen as far and away the biggest threat to law firm profits, with nearly 90% of survey respondents flagging it up. That figure was up from 76% of finance directors citing fee pressure last year and just 58% in 2012.

“Firms are still seeing clients looking for ways to rein in their legal spending,” commented Steer, “and are expecting them to continue to negotiate hard on fee levels and even to look at doing more of their legal work internally.”

The post City law firm associates and partners set to coin it in looming salary war appeared first on Legal Cheek.

In a landmark move, barristers’ regulator gears up to authorise 15 new “entities” that look and smell a lot like solicitors’ firms — and will compete with them

The legal professions of England and Wales finally fused yesterday in all but name — and not so much with a bang, but a whimper as the bar’s regulator quietly announced it was giving the green light to barrister-run law firms that will compete directly with traditional solicitors’ practices.

According to a Bar Standards Board (BSB) statement, 15 “entities” are on the brink of being unveiled once they have arranged professional indemnity cover.

These BSB-regulated businesses — which must be “advocacy-focussed” — will allow for partnerships between barristers, solicitors and other lawyers.

Since implementation of provisions in the Legal Services Act 2007, the Solicitors Regulation Authority has been authorising alternative business structures that allow solicitor-barrister partnerships. But this move from the bar’s side of the profession effectively completes the unofficial fusion circle.

As the BSB itself explained in its statement:

“Entities are companies or partnerships that provide advocacy, litigation, and expert legal advice services. Previously, the BSB only regulated individual barristers. The BSB is now able to regulate businesses owned and managed by barristers and other lawyers.”

The BSB clarified that it was not authorising ABSs, as those bodies go a step further, allowing non-lawyer owners and managers. However, the regulator said it would soon apply to the Legal Services Board to become an ABS licensing authority, a move that will put it in direct regulatory competition with the SRA.

The main difference between the new BSB-regulated entities and solicitor’s firms is that the former will not handle client funds. Explained a BSB spokesman:

“What we’re doing is providing an opportunity for barristers to come up with new business models and ways of delivering services. We hope this will enable them to compete in an increasingly competitive market and, ultimately, help consumers by expanding the range of services available to them.”

Commenting on yesterday’s announcement, the BSB’s director of supervision, Oliver Hanmer, said:

“Our aim is to provide those wanting to specialise in advocacy, litigation and specialist legal advice with a specific and focussed regime … We know from our conversations with members of the bar that there is real enthusiasm for entities regulated by us. I’m sure these 15 are just the beginning.”

The BSB will not reveal the names of the 15 entities until they have put insurance arrangements in place; they have 21 days to do so.

The Bar Council — which represents barristers in England and Wales — gave a clear indication that the new entities would go head to head with solicitors’ firms for crucial areas of work. A council spokesman told Legal Cheek: “We are also researching how entities could engage in direct contracting with local authorities, business and the Legal Aid Agency.”

Hanmer referred to difficult economic conditions and the increasingly competitive environment pressing down on the bar as forming the rationale for the move.

“Against what is for many a backdrop of uncertainty and change,” he said, “we hope this will give barristers and other lawyers more freedom to react to changes in the market and to devise new ways of working so as to remain competitive and best serve their clients. I would urge those thinking of applying or interested in finding out more to get in touch with us.”

The post Legal profession fused through back door – and it’s the bar that left it open appeared first on Legal Cheek.

Indian lawyers launch innovative bid to raise profile and bag piles of global law firm referrals

Is this a developing world English spelling mistake — or something deeper?

Legal Cheek is plumping for the latter, as it would be depressing to think that 500 years of English affiliation with India (granted, most of which involved imperialist domination) failed to result in agreed spellings.

So we reckon the three advocates at “Low Ferm” are simply having a bit of a giggle, anticipating that ultimately someone would broadcast their branding on social media. And hey presto, before they can say chapati, a queue of global law firms will be chucking them referrals.

Roll up Gautam Trivedi — a self-proclaimed “internationally recognised webmaster, humanity-music-news-animal-travel-movies-art-creativity-peace-nature-India & technology lover” — to do the Twitter honours.

Unfortunately, Trivedi failed to note just where in that vast country the global firms can find Low Ferm, but bearing in mind the skills of countless business development teams, we’re sure they’ll track it down.

The post Spelling mistake – or subtly clever marketing gambit? appeared first on Legal Cheek.

Release of online bombing map of the German aerial blitz on London shows some of the world’s biggest names in corporate law could be at risk of being blown to kingdom come

Forget downwards pressure on fee rates, competition from US, and even Chinese, rivals and the growing band of accountancy alternative business structures — the biggest potential threat to City law firms is Hermann Wilhelm Göring.

Exclusive Legal Cheek research shows a possible cluster of unexploded German Second World War bombs lies beneath some of the City’s most renowned legal names.

Recently released data from the Bomb Sight Project — which is mapping London’s bomb census during The Blitz between August 1940 and June 1941 — illustrates that at least seven big name law firms are in potential danger.

The current offices of Clifford Chance, Herbert Smith Freehills, Clyde & Co, Pinsent Masons, King & Wood Mallesons, Mayer Brown and Baker & McKenzie sit near as dammit atop the positions where Nazi bombs fell.

Sadly for fans of irony, the City’s foremost Anglo-German players — Freshfields Bruckhaus Deringer and Taylor Wessing — seem to be in the clear.

Where the bombs fell: Clifford Chance

Herbert Smith Freehills

Clyde & Co

Pinsent Masons

King & Wood Mallesons

Mayer Brown

Baker & McKenzie

Some 20,000 Londoners were killed and about 1 million homes destroyed during the Blitz as Göring’s Luftwaffe pounded the city for 57 nights on the trot to kick off the campaign.

The bombing map was previously only available for viewing in the reading room of the National Archives. But the online Bomb Sight project has now made the maps much more widely available — and given the management and facilities committees at the law firms listed here something to cogitate over late at night.

Indeed, only at the end of last month, a 1,000lb unexploded Nazi bomb was unearthed at a building site near London’s Tower Bridge. When Army experts detonated it in a controlled exercise in a Kent quarry, the explosion was heard up to 10 miles away.

Images via Google Maps

The post Is there an unexploded Nazi bomb under your law firm? appeared first on Legal Cheek.

A Bar Council report flayed solicitor-advocates for being rubbish and Chancery Lane sat on its hands — all because it needs to keep barristers on side in the war to save criminal legal aid

Any barrister claiming to have time and respect for high court solicitor-advocates is either as rare as the dodo, being disingenuously polite or outright lying.

Implementation of the Courts and Legal Services Act 1990 is still seen as perhaps the darkest day in the history of the bar in England and Wales. That legislation tore up the historic barrister monopoly on higher court rights of audience, allowing into the club the riff raff of any Tom, Dick or Harry solicitor who could pass an exam.

The wounds are still raw a generation later — which is why it is not surprising that the Bar Council’s recently published Rivlin Report into Crown Court advocacy contains such thinly veiled vitriol.

It is only slight exaggeration to summarise the general tenor of the Bar Council-backed report as follows: solicitor-advocates are bumbling idiots, who ramble before judges, introduce inappropriate evidence and generally get on the wicks of esteemed judges up and down the land. They are only marginally less atrocious than legal executives, who, by the way, should be barred from sullying the Crown Courts altogether.

More surprising is that the Law Society — the bloated bureaucracy putatively tasked with promoting, defending and lobbying on behalf of solicitors — is so reluctant to fight the corner of the thousands of high court advocates it counts among its membership.

Illustrating Chancery Lane’s head-down approach to the fusillade of abuse the Bar Council hurled at solicitor-advocates was this comment from a Law Society spokesman to Legal Cheek earlier in the week:

“This is an interesting report, but the bulk of the recommendations are more relevant for the Bar Council and Bar Standards Board to look into.”

Er, sorry? Now that the Law Society is no longer a regulator, isn’t it meant to be somewhat less diplomatic and more robust in defence of its members? Indeed, the Chancery Lane line fell in stark contrast with a highly charged retort launched by the Charted Institute of Legal Executives.

So is it true the Law Society for some reason doesn’t give a monkey’s about solicitor-advocates? No.

However, the Chancery Lane mandarins have been forced to play a political game, the result of which is that they are running scared of offending the Bar Council.

The root cause of society’s reluctance to come out spitting and punching in defence of high court solicitor-advocates lies in the last government’s assault on criminal legal aid.

Justice Secretary Chris Grayling was (and presumably will remain so if he continues in post following the forthcoming general election) hell-bent on streamlining the number of solicitors’ firms contracted to provide criminal legal aid services. It is understood that Ministry of Justice plans will slash the number of firms from a current level of around 1,600 down to about 560.

That wholesale contraction of authorised law firms will not be good for barristers (as The Judge pointed out recently). Streamlining will create mega criminal legal aid factories, which will find it more efficient and financially lucrative to use their in-house Crown Court advocates.

Therefore, criminal barristers are gearing up to go back on strike and re-instate their earlier successful “no returns” policy to briefs.

Under the current system, it is barristers that can bring the criminal courts to a grinding halt. Solicitors run scared of strike action for two reasons: first they fear the Legal Aid Agency will slap them with breach of contract actions; and second, they worry that the competition authorities will also act up.

Independent, self-employed barristers don’t have those concerns. Which means that criminal legal aid solicitors need the bar do be in the front line of this life-and-death battle with the Grayling and his slash-and-burn ministry.

As a result, the pen pushers at Chancery Lane are forced to bite their tongues, allowing the Bar Council open season to fire as many shotgun blasts as it likes at solicitor-advocates. It has doubtless been a cathartic experience for senior members of the bar.

And while the Law Society may have good reason for its diplomacy, solicitor-advocates on the ground might not understand or care about the political subtleties.

In common with all solicitors, they have no choice but to pay the Law Society a tax to keep Chancery Lane on its feet and in a constant supply of tea and biscuits. Solicitor-advocates may wish to get more bang for their buck and demand that Chancery Lane stops being so subservient to the bar.

Previously:

Bar blasts solicitors for ‘dumbing down’ Crown Court advocacy — and calls for legal execs to be barred [Legal Cheek]

The post The Judge Rules: Why the Law Society won’t stick up for solicitor-advocates appeared first on Legal Cheek.

Smaller practices are outpacing larger firms, but across the board the profession is more diverse than the wider population

Large commercial law firms may be talking up their diversity programmes, but figures from the solicitors’ regulator show smaller practices are considerably more ethnically diverse.

But law firms across the board continue to perform well in ethnic trainee recruitment, having generally higher percentages than exist within the wider population.

Data from the Solicitors Regulation Authority, published by Legal Week magazine earlier today, show that on average 22.5% of trainees at the country’s largest law firms — those with more than 81 solicitors — were from ethnic minority backgrounds. That figure from 2014 increased significantly over recent years when it stood at 17.5%, according to the authority.

And the figure for ethnic minority trainees across the solicitors’ profession as a whole is reported to be just shy of 30%

When compared with the ethnic minority population in England as a whole, the solicitors’ profession appears to be doing rather well on the diversity front.

The overall profession is slightly more than 14 points above the national average of 15.5%. While the larger firms are 7 points above the percentage in the wider population.

However, both the profession as a whole and the larger firms still have some way to go before matching the percentage of the ethnic minority population in London. The figure in the capital currently stands at slightly more than 40% — or 10 points above the profession wide percentage of ethnic minority trainees and nearly 18 points above the figure for large firms.

The figures relating to gender also cast the solicitors’ profession in a reasonably favourable light. Across the sector, 61.6% of law firm trainees were women, or nearly 11 points above the percentage of women in the population as a whole. At larger firms, nearly 58% of trainees were women.

The post Law firm trainee diversity on the up, according to regulator’s figures appeared first on Legal Cheek.

City law firms back star-studded cast in pre-general election bid to alert public to dangers of cuts to the publicly funded system

Legal aid lawyers are so impoverished — or just plain randy — that they routinely engage in three-in-a-bed bunk-ups.

That’s the message from a film released today, which is designed to raise public awareness of the alleged damage fee and eligibility cuts have wrought on the 66-year-old system.

A start-studded cast from the English stage and screen lends the voice-overs to the six-and-a-half-minute cartoon — with the ensemble headed by Maxine Peake, who starred as Martha Costello QC in the BBC drama Silk.

The film — which was launched today on The Guardian newspaper’s website — was funded by a cross-section of the legal profession, including several City law firms.

On the list of backers are Square Mile heavyweights Ashurt, Dentons, Reed Smith, Simmons & Simmons and Travers Smith. Barristers’ chambers Matrix also chucked in some cash, along with high profile legal aid law firms Leigh Day and Tuckers Solicitors.

The crucial scene comes at about 5.18 in the video (embedded below) and depicts the “Legal Aid Team” — a group of three superhero lawyers — waking from a harrowing nightmare. The two women and one man have for reasons of either financial penury or sexual pleasure clearly spent the night together.

But regardless of why they were bunking up, their sleep was traumatically disturbed by nightmare visions of a dystopian Britain in which society’s most vulnerable have no access to justice thanks to the conniving of evil Lord Chancellor Grayling.

The Grayling character spends most of the video belting out a mad scientist chortle, but he pauses long enough for a rough-and-ready explanation of core recent legal aid cuts.

However, there is no reference to the Evil LC’s predecessors — Lord Falconer and Jack Straw, the Labour Party double act that bears some responsibility for at least gathering the kindling for the legal aid bonfire.

According to the film-makers, the parties’ pre-election positions on the cuts falls down as follows: The Conservatives will press ahead, Labour is inclined to amend, the Liberal Democrats might reverse them, as might UKIP, while the Greens are the only party wholeheartedly committed to restoring legal aid to its former glory.

Credit for effort goes to Fat Rat Films, the company behind the bid to get the public excited about the implications of the last government’s policy towards legal aid and access to justice issues.

But at the risk of being accused of churlishness, Legal Cheek is bound to point out two unfortunate instances of gavels creeping into the film’s courtroom scenes.

At the 42-second mark, what appear to be High Court judges are depicted giving the bench a right old thwack.

And then at 5.05 a banging gavel sound affect appears over the depiction of a very American-looking court building, accompanied by a judge intoning “Order in the court”.

Joining Peake in the voice-over studio was theatrical legend Simon Callow, Gurkha Justice Campaign supporter and actress Joanna Lumley, Sally Hawkins of “Happy Go Lucky” and “Blue Jasmine” fame, and Richard Wilson from the BBC’s “One Foot in the Grave”.

Watch the video in full below:

The post Legal aid lawyers depicted as menage a trois loving superheroes in lobbying film appeared first on Legal Cheek.

Key opposition figures fail to respond to leading legal tweeter David Allen Green

Labour published its manifesto today. The bit about the legal system was almost entirely contained in three paragraphs on pages 66-68.

Journalist and lawyer David Allen Green, who tweets as Jack of Kent, summarised it in five tweets:

Pages 66-68 of http://t.co/caG92qiIF6 appear to be the Labour manifesto commitments on Justice and Law

— Jack of Kent (@JackofKent) April 13, 2015

Labour manifesto: express commitment to keeping Human Rights Act and a promise to widen acces to information under FoI Act (p 67)

— Jack of Kent (@JackofKent) April 13, 2015

Labour manifesto: "we will make sure that access to legal representation…remains available to those that need it" (page 67)

— Jack of Kent (@JackofKent) April 13, 2015

Labour manifesto: "we will repair the damage done by this Government to the vital safeguard offered by judicial review" (page 68)

— Jack of Kent (@JackofKent) April 13, 2015

"we will widen access to legal aid for victims of domestic violence" *only* mention of legal aid in Labour manifesto: http://t.co/caG92qiIF6

— Jack of Kent (@JackofKent) April 13, 2015

In conclusion, as Green noted, Labour is making a specific commitment regarding the Human Rights Act (HRA) and the Freedom of Information Act (FOI), a general commitment on judicial review, and making “positive noises” over access to justice while being very vague about legal aid.

Describing this as “odd”, Green then set about trying to get some answers to the legal aid question from the Labour justice bigwigs on Twitter — @ing into his tweets shadow solicitor general Karl Turner, shadow attorney general Willy Bach, shadow justice secretary Sadiq Khan and shadow justice minister Andy Slaughter.

Query for @hammersmithandy @KarlTurnerMP @SadiqKhan @FightBach Only one specific commitment on legal aid: domestic violence. Why not others?

— Jack of Kent (@JackofKent) April 13, 2015

They ignored him. And they kept ignoring him …

Serious question for @hammersmithandy @KarlTurnerMP @SadiqKhan @FightBach – on legal aid, any more reason to vote Labour than another party?

— Jack of Kent (@JackofKent) April 13, 2015

At the time of publication of this story, none had responded. Read the Labour Manifesto here. The parts about the legal system are on pages 66-68 and page 53.

The post Labour politicians don’t want to talk about their vague legal aid manifesto pledge on Twitter appeared first on Legal Cheek.

Amal Clooney’s chambers colleague is rocking the Insta-verse

39 Essex Chambers’ Justine Thornton quietly joined Instagram the other day, and immediately hauled in an impressive 587 followers with 13 pictorial posts supporting her hubby’s campaign to lead the country.

It was good going by Mrs Ed Miliband but she has a long way to go before she matches Doughty Street junior barrister Tunde Okewale, who has amassed a whopping 5,242 Instagram followers.

With members of the bar typically preferring Twitter and solicitors going for LinkedIn, Okewale — who, incidentally, shares a chambers with fellow shrinking violet Amal Clooney — has made the legal Insta-verse his own. Here is how he did it.

1. He keeps his followers up to date even when he’s in court

#TBT #Lawyer #success #motivation #teamnodaysoff #positivethinking #picoftheday #popularpage #inspirational #suits. #courtroom #lawandorder #law #justice

A photo posted by Tunde Okewale (@tundeokewale) on Jun 26, 2014 at 12:24am PDT

2. Sometimes he makes these court snaps into memes

@UrbnLawyer: "Talk is cheap, until you hire a lawyer."

A photo posted by Tunde Okewale (@tundeokewale) on Oct 8, 2014 at 4:26am PDT

3. He combines commuting pics with life tips

7 Rules to a better Life : 1. Never Hate 2. Live Simply. 3. Expect a Little. 4. Give a lot. 5. Always Smile. 6. Live w/ Love. 7. Be With God #WhatWouldatundeSay #WhatWouldTundeWear #MFRmagazine #mensfashionblogger #blackmenwithstyle #GQ #LFW #fashionweek #ifyourereadingthisitstoolate #fashionformordenmen #menswithstyle #ozwaldboateng #mensfashionreview #menswear #mensfashion #blazer #pocketsquare

A photo posted by Tunde Okewale (@tundeokewale) on Apr 7, 2015 at 8:15am PDT

4. He has a personalised Archbold

#IfYourereadingThisItsTooLate #lawyers #LawyerJoke #WhatWouldTundeRead #boxFresh #Barrister #teamnodaysoff #Inspiration #law #picoftheday

A photo posted by Tunde Okewale (@tundeokewale) on Feb 19, 2015 at 2:26am PST

5. He uses the incredible story of how he bagged a pupillage with a 2:2 from Westminster Uni after a tough start in life to inspire wannabe lawyers

The Urban Lawyers Team would like to take this opportunity to invite you to an event taking place at BPP Law School in Holborn on Thursday 31st October 2013 6pm- 8pm. This is being hosted by the founder of Urban Lawyers, Tunde Okewale, and will revolve around his journey into becoming a Barrister after gaining a 2:2 in his degree. This will be beneficial to all law students who are looking to enter the field of law.

A photo posted by Tunde Okewale (@tundeokewale) on Oct 27, 2013 at 3:10am PDT

6. His access to law project, Urban Lawyers, helps students get Inns of Court scholarships

By @urbanlawyers via @RepostWhiz app: A recent email to #UrbanLawyers founder @tundeokewale and the UL team. Messages like this keep us going! Thank you! #motivation #barrister #BPTC #scholarship #winner (#RepostWhiz app) This message made me smile #PayItForward #whatWouldTundeDo

A photo posted by Tunde Okewale (@tundeokewale) on Mar 23, 2015 at 5:15am PDT

7. Through Urban Lawyers Okewale also helps students to get training contracts

s/o @urbanlawyers and @BLPLaw and @BLPTrainees #Selfie #lifeasatrainee a big thank you to all those in attendance ( and in the selfie)

A photo posted by Tunde Okewale (@tundeokewale) on Jan 28, 2015 at 12:07pm PST

8. He’s not afraid to wear a beige polo neck under a blue checked suit

#WhatWouldTundeWear #MFRmagazine #mensfashionblogger #blackmenwithstyle #GQ #LFW #fashionweek #ifyourereadingthisitstoolate #fashionformordenmen #menswithstyle #ozwaldboateng #mensfashionreview #lcm

A photo posted by Tunde Okewale (@tundeokewale) on Feb 16, 2015 at 6:35am PST

9. He’s not afraid to wear a pink polo neck under a pink suit

A photo posted by Tunde Okewale (@tundeokewale) on Oct 9, 2014 at 12:16pm PDT

10. Such fashions decisions have paid off and he has been voted one of GQ’s “35 coolest men”

For those of you who didn't pick up the December issue of @britishgq the article is now on line I was no 33 on the cool list , the most influential men under 38.5 ( globally) S/O @kendricklamar @jack @mb459i @champagnepapi @petecashmore @ryan_gosling @pirloficial @charliecaselyhayford @christopherkanestudio who also made the list Link in my bio #GQ #WhatWouldTundeDo #fashionformodernmen #MFRmagazine

A photo posted by Tunde Okewale (@tundeokewale) on Mar 4, 2015 at 9:04am PST

11. He has a nice line in self-deprecatory humour

@_londons_very_own_ken – Act your wage

A photo posted by Tunde Okewale (@tundeokewale) on Apr 1, 2015 at 4:53am PDT

12. He is in great shape

idea credit:@lethalbizzle video credit: @verenastefanie.fitness Music: @lethalbizzle #Fester #teamnodaysoff #WhatWouldTundeDo #winning #noteverydaysuit #inspiration #gym #pullups #inspiration #Mood #motivation #dench #fitness #gymjunkies #barstarz strength #weights #strong #iliftheavy #progress #bodybuilding #festerskank #denchgang #dench #lethalbizzle

A video posted by Tunde Okewale (@tundeokewale) on Mar 31, 2015 at 7:00am PDT

13. Sometimes he combines his love of sharp suits and fitness

Beginning of a new series of videos: Suit Calisthenics idea and video credit: @lydiamok #brixtonstreetgym #streetgym #muscleups #calisthenics #calilife #barlife #blockworkout

A video posted by Tunde Okewale (@tundeokewale) on Jul 18, 2014 at 7:56am PDT

14. He gets invited to events where Barack Obama is speaking

#TBT – National Prayer Breakfast with @barrack_obama_offical

A photo posted by Tunde Okewale (@tundeokewale) on Jul 9, 2014 at 10:21pm PDT

15. He’s good at getting you going in the morning

Every morning you have a choice: forget your dreams or live them. #MotivationalMondays #WhatWouldTundeSay

A photo posted by Tunde Okewale (@tundeokewale) on Jan 18, 2015 at 10:07pm PST

16. He’s not afraid to reject the bar convention of faux-modesty and actually celebrate winning cases

#IfYourereadingThisItsTooLate #legendOnrepeat #goals #motivational #teamnodaysoff #teamwinning

A photo posted by Tunde Okewale (@tundeokewale) on Feb 24, 2015 at 4:33am PST

For more Instagram amusement, check out Legal Cheek‘s humour-packed pics here.

The post 16 reasons why Doughty Street’s Tunde Okewale is the most followed barrister on Instagram appeared first on Legal Cheek.

Is Tesos Express the best example yet of cheeky local retailers tweaking the tails of national and multinational behemoths — and will they get away with it?

Legal Cheek has highlighted several potential copyright infringements in the past — readers will fondly remember classics such as ‘Michaelsoft Binbows’, ‘Pizza Inn’. And who can forget Bolton takeaway ‘McIndian’.

But now step forward this gem provided by the good folk at Tesos Express. According to Twitter chat, the shop is based in the south-west London borough of Kingston upon Thames, with the owners appearing to adopt a if-you-can’t-beat-them-join-them-ish approach.

Indeed, they may have been hoping that as the large supermarket chain is gearing up to defend a massive law suit relating to its overstatement of profits last year, its in-house legal team might be too busy to notice.

A Google maps image (below), dated June 2014, appeared to show the sign covered up. However, Legal Cheek has discovered tweets from as recently as March of this year showing it still in place.

But as one leading specialist lawyer pointed out, if the sign is still on display, the shopkeepers had better start thinking about taking some advice.

“Major brands aren’t continuously patrolling Britain’s high streets for knock-offs,” DAC Beachcroft partner Robin Fry told Legal Cheek.

“But they inevitably pick up on any copying as laughable as this and they will treat it seriously. Like changing one word in a song lyric, missing out one letter here doesn’t save the opportunist shop owner — there’s clearly both trade mark infringement and passing off here. They’ll be ordering a new sign presently.”

Images via Google Maps and @chrisscholars

The post Yet another copyright infringement has surfaced on Twitter appeared first on Legal Cheek.

Anger as Conservatives promise Bill of Rights and to reduce power of European Court of Human Rights — oh, and hint at more legal aid cuts

Top lawyers have reacted angrily on social media to the Tories’ plans for the legal system which were published today as part of its election manifesto.

Chief among the proposals is a longstanding pledge to scrap the Human Rights Act (HRA) — introduced by Tony Blair’s Labour in 1998 — and bring in a “Bill of Rights”.

According to the manifesto, such a bill would “remain faithful” to the core principles of the HRA to “protect basic rights, like the right to a fair trial, and the right to life, which is an essential part of a modern democratic society”.

But it would apparently “reverse the ‘mission creep’ that has meant human rights law being used for more and more purposes, and often with little regard for the rights of wider society.”

Related is the Tories’ pledge to make the UK Supreme Court the “ultimate arbiter” of human rights for Britain, although they were very sketchy on the details on this point.

One Crown Office Row human rights barrister Adam Wagner wasn’t impressed, labelling the plans “vague and muddled”:

Tory manifesto vague and muddled on human rights: scrap HRA for Bill of Rights, Europe bits give no clear commitment pic.twitter.com/QtU5iCL6We

— Adam Wagner (@AdamWagner1) April 14, 2015

Wagner went on to point out that, in their detail-lite current form, the Tory proposals represent a retreat from justice secretary Chris Grayling’s earlier plan — announced in October last year — to quit the European Convention on Human Rights.

Thankfully, the ECHR-withdrawal plan appears to have been scrapped and Chris Grayling and Theresa May (hopefully) have lost the argument.

— Adam Wagner (@AdamWagner1) April 14, 2015

On the issue of legal aid, the manifesto was predictably gloomy — and contained this ominous line:

“We will continue to review our legal aid systems, so they can continue to provide access to justice in an efficient way”.

Responding to a screenshot of this quote tweeted by 11KBW employment lawyer Sean Jones QC, top Blackstone Chambers barrister Dinah Rose QC wrote wearily:

@seanjones11kbw On a more serious note, this tells us that further legal aid cuts are in the pipeline. Don't say you weren't warned.

— Dinah Rose (@DinahRoseQC) April 14, 2015

Jones proceeded to provide this further translation of ToryManifestoSpeak:

@DinahRoseQC My working assumption is "review" means "cut" and "reform" means "destroy utterly".

— Sean Jones (@seanjones11kbw) April 14, 2015

So, in summary, the Tories don’t much like the rule of law. As leading solicitor and legal journalist David Allen Green (who tweets as Jack of Kent) put it:

Tory policy seeks to weaken all practical legal checks to abuses of executive power: legal aid, judicial review, and human rights law.

— Jack of Kent (@JackofKent) April 14, 2015

Unfortunately, as we have already discovered, the signs are that the Labour Party isn’t especially into the protection of legal rights either. As we reported yesterday, its manifesto declined to specify what it will do about legal aid, stating only that “we will make sure that access to legal representation…remains available to those that need it”.

Given the state of the system in the wake of Grayling’s attacks on it, the use of the term “remains” is obviously a cause for concern.

So far only the Green Party has pledged to protect legal aid, with its manifesto, also published today, promising to reverse cuts made to the legal aid system in the unlikely event that the party is elected in May.

It’s the Lib Dems’ turn tomorrow.

PREVIOUSLY:

Labour politicians don’t want to talk about their vague legal aid manifesto pledge on Twitter [Legal Cheek]

The post Legal profession doesn’t rate Tory manifesto pledge to scrap Human Rights Act appeared first on Legal Cheek.

Exclusive: Fall-out from anti-West rant continues to cause magic circle firm difficulties

Clifford Chance has ditched plans to send YouTube rant trainee Aysh Chaudhry on secondment to Singapore amid speculation that the move may cause problems with the country’s legal profession regulators and damage client relationships.

Legal Cheek understands that the magic circle giant has acted pre-emptively to avoid potential issues having assessed the position of the Singapore law authorities and local clients over Chaudhry’s anti-West diatribe, which remains live on YouTube.

In the end, no applications were made to register the first-year trainee in the country where plans had been made for him to complete a stint in Clifford Chance’s 80 lawyer-strong office from the spring. Instead, Chaudhry will remain in London.

The U-turn illustrates the difficulties that the Canary Wharf-based firm continues to face over its backing of Chaudhry, who in January generated headlines internationally for posting an anti-West video rant in the wake of the Charlie Hebdo massacre. The story was broken by Legal Cheek.

Some have praised the magic circle giant for sticking by the youngster, who is aged just 22, and has an impressive CV that includes a first class degree from SOAS and a host of vac schemes at top law firms. Chaudhry’s supporters point out that he didn’t incite violence at any point during the video and is entitled to express himself freely as a private citizen.

Others reckon Chaudhry’s rant — in which non-Muslims are referred to as the “kuffar” and Islam labelled as “superior” to Western ideologies — besmirches the reputation of Clifford Chance and merits dismissal. Both views can be found on this Legal Cheek comment thread.

Big law firms typically do their best to hang onto trainees where they have made high-profile mistakes, tending to wait until newly qualified positions are offered to make decisions about their long term futures.

When contacted by Legal Cheek yesterday, Clifford Chance declined to issue a response. Chaudhry was also unavailable for comment.

The post Clifford Chance cancels YouTube rant trainee’s Singapore secondment amid regulatory concerns appeared first on Legal Cheek.

30 year-old narrowly beats gaggle of paralegals to equivalent means qualification that bypasses training contract

A graduate of the University of Essex who slogged it out as a paralegal for four years has become the first person to be admitted as a solicitor without doing a training contract under the new equivalent means system.

Robert Houchill, 30, graduated in law back in 2008 but only began working as a paralegal in 2010 after a two-year stint teaching English in Russia. His first position was at the Coram Children’s Legal Centre, before doing a year each at London immigration firms Wilson Solicitors and Gherson Solicitors. In 2013 he joined his current employer, national firm Bates Wells Braithwaite.

During this period Houchill did a part-time Legal Practice Course (LPC) at the University of Law, which he self-funded.

In July last year when the equivalent means route — dubbed the paralegal shortcut — was launched, Houchill put in an application to have the experience he had gleaned across a variety of practice areas count towards qualification as a solicitor.

On Tuesday, he beat a number of other paralegals who are about to qualify through this route, including Lincoln University law graduate Shaun Lawler, who is believed to be the first person to register for the paralegal shortcut. Lawler explained the process he had gone through in an exclusive interview with Legal Cheek last month.

Yesterday Houchill told Legal Cheek how he had been driven to follow this new path after he was unsuccessful in a first round of training contract applications.

Having taken a risk in self-funding the LPC, he said that he is “pleased and relieved” to have qualified as a solicitor.

PREVIOUSLY

Legal Cheek meets the first person to do the paralegal shortcut [Legal Cheek]

The Paralegal Shortcut: 29 LPC grads apply to qualify as solicitors without doing a training contract [Legal Cheek]

The post Essex Uni law grad first over line to qualify as solicitor through paralegal shortcut appeared first on Legal Cheek.

Life for follicly-challenged lawyers made a misery by London gulls — but help on hand

International commentators often gently mock UK barristers for persisting with 18th-century court dress, but now there is a practical reason to maintain at least the wigs — as seagull protection devices.

It has emerged that the authorities at Lincoln’s Inn have been forced to adopt drastic measures to protect a certain class of male barrister — the follicly-challenged.

According to avian experts, bald barristers are especially vulnerable to seagull attack during the birds’ nesting and mating season, which, just for the avoidance of doubt, is now.

And The Times (£) newspaper reported yesterday that Lincoln’s Inn officials have resorted to bringing in raptors to defend senior juniors and silks with not much left on top.

John Lincoln, one of the inn’s appropriately-named wardens, told the newspaper:

“I’ve treated people with bloody heads before who have been pecked or scraped by their beaks or claws when they’ve swooped down. It’s not been pretty.”

Coming to the rescue are two hawks, Bob-Jack and Mischa, and a falcon, Shiva. Lincoln’s Inn has instructed the birds to patrol its grounds and to see off pesky gulls.

Controlling them is Jake O’Neil, from an outfit called Surrey Bird Control, who explained:

“We arrive prior to the seagulls and provide a credible threat to stop them developing nests on the buildings. Normally you might use spikes or nets but because there’s a lot of old architecture at Lincoln’s Inn it’s more efficient for us to use Harris hawks to make sure the honourable members have a nice, peaceful summer.”

O’Neil described the threat from the gulls. They “swoop down out of the sky and aim themselves directly at someone’s head so people are either injured by their beak on claws on contact or injured when they dive out of the way. In the past they’ve particularly attacked bald men and they’ve drawn blood.”

According to the newspaper, the raptors are trained not to attack lawyers or kill seagulls — but instead to provide a deterrent threat.

Mr O’Neil said:

“Seagulls are very clever and they alert each other to the presence of a predator with the calls they make. When the hawks are around, seagulls all over central London know this isn’t a safe place to nest. We’re restoring order.”

But as one astute Times reader pointed out on the paper’s online comment section, an arguably cheaper measure would have been to apply for an exemption to the Bar Council’s long-standing guidance that barristers should not wear their wigs outside of court.

Indeed, Legal Cheek suggests that top-of-the-range wig purveyor Ede & Ravenscroft could manufacture a plastic reinforced model — something akin to a cycling helmet, perhaps — to provide comfort and safety for those bald tenants perambulating through or lunching in Lincoln’s Inn during this fraught seagull mating season.

Images via Alex Deane, Meg Wise and Wildy’s Bookshop

The post Birds of prey swoop into Inns of Court to protect bald barristers from seagull attacks appeared first on Legal Cheek.