With the Bar Council stoking the furnace over ‘public access’ for the last 10 years, there has been constant regulatory change surrounding the initiative, suggesting either a carefully measured approach to improving competitive practices, or an ad hoc response to what may be fundamental flaws in the original idea that no amount of regulatory adjustment can resolve.
The legal profession is often seen as a static environment by those working outside it (and sometimes within it), populated by traditional partnership structures and slow to implement the different concepts embraced by other industries such as outsourcing. However, the legal workplace is also undergoing change as increasing numbers of personnel consider the alternatives to private practice or self-employment, encouraged by initiatives such as the relaxation of the Bar Standards Board’s regulatory changes allowing barristers to act as partners in a law firm.
Compelled interviews are a long-standing feature of the criminal and regulatory landscape in the UK. The Serious Fraud Office (SFO) has the power to compel persons to answer questions under section 2 of the Criminal Justice Act 1987. The Financial Conduct Authority (FCA) has a similar power under section 171 of the Financial Services and Markets Act 2000 (FSMA). Answers given in such interviews are not generally admissible as evidence against the interviewee in criminal proceedings
The Dewani extradition has brought the importance of international cooperation in serious criminal cases to the fore once again. But extradition is not the only issue involved in cases of this type – sometimes establishing where a crime took place can be important. For example, in the recent case against Rimas Venclovas, the victim was abducted from Peterborough by her Lithuanian ex-husband and her body was discovered in Poland. The case raised the question of whether the suspect should be tried in the English courts. So how can the courts cope with cross-jurisdictional issues of this kind?
This article is based on an earlier article the author published on the Centre for Crime and Justice Studies website as part of the Centre’s Justice Matters for Women project. 'What would you do if he hit you?' asked the midwife at an antenatal check up. I won’t go into what I said exactly, but the midwife picked up on what I didn’t say and she told me; 'You go to the police. Women are not alone.' Posing this question to all pregnant women seems commendable to me; a necessary acknowledgement that male violence against a partner pre- and post-birth is a common experience and should be neither a taboo or something to keep quiet about.
The Supreme Court handed down a landmark judgment on 22 January 2014 (Lord Neuberger giving the judgment of the court in relation to the law in England & Wales and Lord Hodge in relation to Scotland) overturning the High Court and Court of Appeal’s decisions in the case of Marley v Rawlings  UKSC 2.
A unique selling proposition is an often overlooked but extremely important element of every barristers’ chambers business development strategy. For your set to thrive and ensure long term profitability in today’s competitive legal practice landscape, it needs to have a relevant, compelling and intelligently articulated unique selling proposition.
The Attorney General Jeremy Wright QC MP recently told an audience at the Cambridge International Symposium on Economic Crime that “officials are considering proposals for the creation of an offence of a corporate failure to report economic crime, modelled on the section 7 Bribery Act offence”.