I have on a few occasions blogged on the High Court’s (and indeed the now Lord Chief Justice’s) exasperation, justified or not, with the conduct of some immigration solicitors.
With the hue and cry about big data, artificial intelligence and law being accentuated by all the talk around Watson/Ross, I was interested to see this thoughtful, carefully carried out and documented piece of research into the qualities of brief writing before the US Supreme Court from US political scientist Adam Feldman.
Last week I attended a Symposium on Corporate Lawyers organised by Steven Vaughan and his colleagues at the Centre for Professional Legal Education and Research (CEPLER). It was a great event, bringing together a wide range of academics working on corporate lawyers alongside a fair few from corporate practice. I thought I’d share a few …
The recent Court of Appeal decision in Proctor v Raleys  EWCA Civ 400 raises the interesting question as to whether commoditisation of legal services, which may lead to cheaper more accessible justice for consumers, should be held to the same professional standards as lawyers providing services in a more traditional manner.
I find the psychology of professional ethics endlessly fascinating. Take this piece by Elaine Doyle, Jane Frecknall Hughes and Barbara Summers (2013) An Empirical Analysis of the Ethical Reasoning of Tax Practitioners, (access here), which I thank Iain Campbell for mentioning to me.
Readers who have not seen this already might be interested in the executive report from a study I am leading on Legal Risk: Definition, Management, and Ethics. It looks at legal risk practices in large corporates here in the UK. It can be found on SSRN and UCL’s webpages.
At the same time as the MoJ has published Liz Trinder led research on litigants in person in private family law cases (disclosure, I was a member of the team) the MoJ have published the curiously described, Experimental Statistics: analysis of estimated hearing duration in Private Law cases, England and Wales, Ministry of Justice Ad-hoc …
Charles Plant, outgoing Chair of the SRA who has led the SRA through one of the more interesting phases in its relatively young life, had some interesting thoughts in a recent valedictory speech (at legal futures). In particular, flat-earther comments aside, he is reported as having offered this:
I finally got round to reading this report from John Maule on the Legal Services Board research pages. It sells itself a little short with the title: Helping Legal Services Consumers Make Better Decisions: Methods to Identify and Respond to Legal Problems, because it also looks at professional decision making and strategic decision making. There’s …
It’s quite a rarity for a practising lawyer to suggest serious unethicality on the part of his or her colleagues, so when it happens it’s worth taking notice.