header-logo header-logo

THIS ISSUE
Card image

Issue: Vol 168, Issue 7807

07 September 2018
IN THIS ISSUE

John Gould delves into the details behind EY’s acquisition of Riverview Law: all hot air, or law firms beware?

It’s time for lawyers to get smart about artificial intelligence. Nancy Jessen reports

Suspended possession reversal; cornet holder catch up; boost for gamblers; tax penalty escape.

This week: attachment disobeyed; possession costs; questioning the expert; non-mol undertakings.

Keith Wilding reviews the Mental Health Act & considers some ambitious proposals for a brighter future

Simon Parsons reflects on the dishonesty test as the first anniversary of Ivey approaches

David Locke & Carmel Shachar consider the impact of globalised medicine on withdrawal of treatment decisions in the UK

David Burrows examines the decision in Mills v Mills & what it means for maintenance for a dependent spouse

Show
10
Results
Results
10
Results

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 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
A Competition Appeal Tribunal (CAT) ruling has reopened debate on the availability of ‘user damages’ in competition claims. Writing in NLJ this week, Edward Nyman of Hausfeld explains how the CAT allowed Dr Liza Lovdahl Gormsen’s alternative damages case against Meta to proceed, rejecting arguments that such damages are barred in competition law
back-to-top-scroll