Being risk savvy and commercially aware is the equivalent of ‘leaning in’ for today’s in-house lawyer. Can one do this and retain the mantle of professionalism? Or rather, how can one do that? That is the central concern of our book, In-House Lawyers’ Ethics: Institutional Logics, Legal Risk and the Tournament of Influence. We interviewed …
There are some interesting comments highlighted in a story on Legal Futures this month by the president of the Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal (SDT) regarding a BSB consultation. ‘The SDT will remain the master of its own destiny in this debate. Its membership will do what it believes to be right in a rational, informed, evidence-based manner.
For some time, I have known how I would start my inevitable blogpost about Leigh Day’s disciplinary hearing. Win or lose, I would want to state unequivocally my prior belief, my starting point. That starting point is best indicated by what I told a legal magazine when asked three years ago which lawyer I most …
A casual tweet of mine about the Oxford stabbing story gained unusual prominence (for a tweet of mine) and most of the people I have bumped into have wanted to talk about it.
Deloitte’s 2016 report [Developing legal talent: Stepping into the future law firm] has garnered some attention for suggesting a ‘tipping point’ is coming to the legal profession as early as 2020. In truth, as interesting as the report is, it has not really produced new evidence to support the claim that, ‘[Legal services businesses] will …
Lord Neuberger (pictured), in a recent short speech, provides some interesting insights in to the problematic world of legal advice privilege (LAP), but he does so with one eye closed. Let me explain.
This response to the Solicitors Regulation Authority’s (SRA) Consultation on training tomorrow’s solicitors is a personal one. I am afraid this will not make a great deal of sense to those of you not familiar with the proposals, my apologies in advance.
Those of you who follow my work closely (*hello mum and dad*) will observe that I am a cautious proponent of innovation but – because the day job demands it and because it is interesting – I also spend some time talking and writing about the ethics of innovation.
Two quotes on legal professional privilege caught my eye this week. First this from two lawyers at Herbert Smith Freehills (HSF) about the decision in Property Alliance Group Limited v The Royal Bank of Scotland.
Steven Vaughan and Claire Coe have conducted a study of senior commercial lawyers for – but independent of – the Solicitors Regulation Authority. The study concentrated on ‘high impact’ [i.e. high risk in SRA terms] commercial firms working.