header-logo header-logo

Blogging in court pilot

04 October 2018
Issue: 7811 / Categories: Legal News
printer mail-detail

Legal bloggers have been given access to the family court and family division of the High Court for the first time, as a nine-month pilot began this week. To take part, bloggers must be lawyers who hold a valid practising certificate, or work in higher education or in a charity. If the judge agrees, they will be allowed to attend and report on family proceedings. Bloggers must show photo ID and evidence that they are eligible before attending. Lucy Reed, a lawyer who campaigns for the Transparency Project charity, has published a blog about her experience as one of the first to take part.

Issue: 7811 / Categories: Legal News
printer mail-details

MOVERS & SHAKERS

Freeths—Ruth Clare

Freeths—Ruth Clare

National real estate team bolstered by partner hire in Manchester

Farrer & Co—Claire Gordon

Farrer & Co—Claire Gordon

Partner appointed head of family team

mfg Solicitors—Neil Harrison

mfg Solicitors—Neil Harrison

Firm strengthens agriculture and rural affairs team with partner return

NEWS
Conveyancing lawyers have enjoyed a rapid win after campaigning against UK Finance’s decision to charge for access to the Mortgage Lenders’ Handbook
The Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) has launched a recruitment drive for talented early career and more senior barristers and solicitors
Regulators differed in the clarity and consistency of their post-Mazur advice and guidance, according to an interim report by the Legal Services Board (LSB)
The dangers of uncritical artificial intelligence (AI) use in legal practice are no longer hypothetical. In this week's NLJ, Dr Charanjit Singh of Holborn Chambers examines cases where lawyers relied on ‘hallucinated’ citations — entirely fictitious authorities generated by AI tools
The Solicitors Act 1974 may still underpin legal regulation, but its age is increasingly showing. Writing in NLJ this week, Victoria Morrison-Hughes of the Association of Costs Lawyers argues that the Act is ‘out of step with modern consumer law’ and actively deters fairness
back-to-top-scroll