header-logo header-logo

23 November 2018
Categories: Legal News , Brexit , Profession , Litigation trends
printer mail-detail

Litigators embrace change

julian_acratopulo_3

As Brexit disarray continues, lawyers need to embrace change to ensure the City retains its crown as the first choice for international disputes, the president of the London Solicitors Litigation Association (LSLA) has said.  

Speaking at the LSLA annual dinner this week, Julian Acratopulo (pictured), who is also a partner at Clifford Chance, called on members to welcome the disclosure pilot, which is due to launch in the business and property courts on 1 January. It aims to find ways to cope with enormous growth in electronic data, which makes disclosure a lengthy and complicated process.

Acratopulo said: ‘The LSLA is encouraged by the amount of judge-led reform occurring in the sector and one example has been disclosure.

‘Whilst the London courts are preeminent, this is not a given for the future. It is the responsibility of all litigators to engage with the current reforms and provide their feedback.

‘Whilst the legal profession is not necessarily under immediate threat from digital innovation, artificial intelligence or robots, it is clear that competitive disruption remains a real and immediate risk. We need to make sure our system is match-fit for the 21st century, not least as our clients, the end users, are demanding it.’

Guest speaker Ian Forrester QC spoke about his perspectives on Brexit given his role as judge of the General Court of the EU.

Four out of five litigators thought the government should take action urgently, or very urgently, to protect London’s status as a pre-eminent litigation forum, in an LSLA survey in October. The majority thought there wold be a significant flight of work from London in the coming years.

MOVERS & SHAKERS

Cripps—Radius Law

Cripps—Radius Law

Commercial and technology practice boosted by team hire

Switalskis—Grimsby

Switalskis—Grimsby

Firm expands with new Grimsby office to serve North East Lincolnshire

Slater Heelis—Will Newman & Lucy Spilsbury

Slater Heelis—Will Newman & Lucy Spilsbury

Property team boosted by two solicitor appointments

NEWS
A High Court ruling involving the Longleat estate has exposed the fault line between modern family building and historic trust drafting. Writing in NLJ this week, Charlotte Coyle, director and family law expert at Freeths, examines Cator v Thynn [2026] EWHC 209 (Ch), where trustees sought approval to modernise trusts that retain pre-1970 definitions of ‘child’, ‘grandchild’ and ‘issue’
Fresh proposals to criminalise ‘nudification’ apps, prioritise cyberflashing and non-consensual intimate images, and even ban under-16s from social media have reignited debate over whether the Online Safety Act 2023 (OSA 2023) is fit for purpose. Writing in NLJ this week, Alexander Brown, head of technology, media and telecommunications, and Alexandra Webster, managing associate, Simmons & Simmons, caution against reactive law-making that could undermine the Act’s ‘risk-based and outcomes-focused’ design
Recent allegations surrounding Peter Mandelson and Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor have reignited scrutiny of the ancient common law offence of misconduct in public office. Writing in NLJ this week, Simon Parsons, teaching fellow at Bath Spa University, asks whether their conduct could clear a notoriously high legal hurdle
A landmark ruling has reshaped child clinical negligence claims. Writing in NLJ this week, Jodi Newton, head of birth and paediatric negligence at Osbornes Law, explains how the Supreme Court in CCC v Sheffield Teaching Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust [2026] UKSC 5 has overturned Croke v Wiseman, ending the long-standing bar on children recovering ‘lost years’ earnings
A Court of Appeal ruling has drawn a firm line under party autonomy in arbitration. Writing in NLJ this week, Masood Ahmed, associate professor at the University of Leicester, analyses Gluck v Endzweig [2026] EWCA Civ 145, where a clause allowing arbitrators to amend an award ‘at any time’ was held incompatible with the Arbitration Act 1996
back-to-top-scroll