header-logo header-logo

25 February 2016
Issue: 7688 / Categories: Legal News , Profession
printer mail-detail

Solicitors feeling the squeeze at both ends of the profession

Partners are delaying retirement because of recent cuts in pension saving for high earners, creating a bottleneck at the senior end of the profession, according to research by accountants Smith & Williamson.

Its 21st Annual Survey of the Professional Services Sector shows that more than half of the partners questioned expect a rise in the retirement age to affect opportunities for partner development and hence succession planning. The accountants also report that 90% of the 95 firms surveyed leave individual partners to organise their own retirement planning.

Mike Fosberry, director at Smith & Williamson, said: “It is in firms’ own interests to support partners in making personal financial arrangements.”

At the other end of the spectrum, the Law Society has expressed concern that a new qualifying exam, Solicitors Qualifying Examination, could result in lower standards and reduce access to the profession.

Jonathan Smithers, Law Society President, said access would only be increased if training providers developed cheaper and more flexible courses: “Our concern is that the Solicitors Regulation Authority’s (SRA) consultation contains little detail on the proposed assessments.” He accused the SRA of “making piecemeal announcements to the profession on its proposals. This is unhelpful and causing grave concern.”

However, Paul Philip, SRA chief executive, said: “All parties agree there is a problem caused by an inability to measure standards across providers. What we are proposing is a single assessment that we think will ensure, for the first time, consistent high standards of entry into the profession, regardless of pathway into the profession. This is a high-level consultation and we want to hear from as many interested parties as possible on the key issues.”

Issue: 7688 / Categories: Legal News , Profession
printer mail-details

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