header-logo header-logo

22 February 2007 / Jay Tayler-webb
Issue: 7261 / Categories: Features , Profession
printer mail-detail

Take control

Rule 5 need not be an irksome imposition, argues
Jay Tayler-Webb

The new Rule 5—Business Management in England and Wales (rule 5) says principals and directors of solicitors’ practices must “make arrangements for the effective management of the firm as a whole”, including:
 supervision over all staff;
 direction of clients’ matters;
 client care, costs information and complaints handling;
 equality and diversity;
 training;
 financial control of budgets, expenditure and cash flow;
 business continuity; and
 risk management.

Rule 5 also applies to employed supervising lawyers eg heads of department. The latest draft and accompanying guidance are on the Law Society’s website (see www.lawsociety.org.uk).

Compliance and survival

Rule 5 should not be regarded as yet another irksome imposition. Although its purpose is to protect the public, it will benefit law firms too.
Make no mistake, there are expert business managers out there, greedily eyeing up the legal services marketplace. They are jubilant as they watch barriers to entry being demolished by the Legal Services Bill’s progress through Parliament. They have a cunning strategy in place for taking significant

If you are not a subscriber, subscribe now to read this content
If you are already a subscriber sign in
...or Register for two weeks' free access to subscriber content

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