Twitter @TheCLLS and @CLSC2 www.clls.org enquiries@clls.org
Editor
Salome Coker
Editorial Board
Joel Leigh (Russell Cooke LLP), Chair
Sophia Watson
Colin Passmore (CLLS)
Patrick McCann (CLLS)
Philip Mole (Michelmores LLP)
Naureen Shariff (Blackfords LLP)
Elizabeth Thomas (CLLS)
Journalist
Maroulla Paul
Published on behalf of The City of London Solicitors’ Company and The City of London Law Society by
Benham Publishing Limited
PUBLISHER
Ian Fletcher
Benham Publishing Limited
Aintree Building, Aintree Way, Aintree Business Park, Liverpool L9 5AQ
Tel: 0151 236 4141
Fax: 0151 236 0440
Email: admin@benhampublishing.com
Web: www.benhampublishing.com
Advice to readers:
City Solicitor is published four times a year by the City of London Solicitors’ Company and the City of London Law Society. Reproduction, copy, extraction or redistribution by any means of the whole or part of this publication must not be undertaken without the written permission of the publishers. City Solicitor is distributed as a free member benefit to all members of the City of London Solicitors’ Company and the City of London Law Society.
Articles are published in good faith without responsibility on the part of the publishers or authors for loss to any person acting or refraining from acting as a result of any views expressed in them. Opinions expressed in this publication should not be regarded as the official view of the CLSC or the CLLS or as the personal views of the Editorial Board or their respective firms. All rights are reserved in respect of all articles, drawings and photographs published in City Solicitor, anywhere in the world. Reproduction or imitations of these are expressly forbidden without permission of the publishers.
The City of London Solicitors’ Company
8 COMMENTS FROM THE CLLS CHAIRMAN.
Colin Passmore reflects on how our profession can step up to support Jewish colleagues in these worrying times.
14 “A VERY CONFUSED LANDSCAPE”
10 SEEING RED
The colour of urgency and action: exploring lawyers driving change, tackling the justice system, leading committees, and facing new scrutiny.
17 THE QUIET ARCHITECTS OF THE CITY
Inside the CLLS specialist committees: construction and land law chairs on influence, innovation and the work shaping the City’s foundations.
11 TRIAL BY FIRE: DAVID WALBANK KC AND THE CASE FOR OUTRAGE
David Walbank KC delivers a fierce critique of plans to abolish jury trials in fraud cases, arguing that the stakes are nothing less than the integrity of justice itself.
We speak to David Hamilton on the FCA’s AML Expansion and what it means for law firms. Is this a red alert?
20 LAYING THE GROUNDWORK
Inside the CLLS Land Law Committee: Matthew Hooton on shaping practical frameworks for standardising transactions, updating precedents and raising the committee’s profile.
30 MANSION HOUSE BANQUET 2026
A look back at the highlight of the Solicitors' Company's social calendar.
31 THE CEREMONY OF THE KEYS
Lee Maclernon attends this very private and intimate tour of the Tower Of London and shares his experience with us.
38 BACK IN THE STRAND: SIMPSON'S RECLAIMS ITS PLACE AT THE TABLE
Step inside the newly reopened Simpson’s in the Strand with Jeremy King at the helm. From champagne in the upstairs bar to the iconic roast carved tableside, this piece explores the restaurant’s storied history, its famous patrons, and why London’s most classic dining experience is back—and better than ever. And it's very red!
23 THE ROOM WHERE IT HAPPENS: POWER, PARTNERSHIP AND THE BUSINESS OF INCLUSION
A new City event aims to turn inclusion into action, connecting black partners with those who instruct them and reshaping the future of legal business development. We talk with Julian Richard, the man behind this powerful incentive.
33 TRADITION REIMAGINED: THE CLSC LOOKS TO THE FUTURE
The City of London Solicitors’ Company is opening its doors to a new generation. Through the voices of four junior lawyers, this piece explores how early engagement is reshaping tradition, widening access and redefining what it means to belong to one of the City’s most historic institutions.
42 THE MAN WHO TASTED VICTORY: GÉRARD BASSET AND THE PURSUIT OF PERFECTION
A graceful, quietly powerful portrait of Gérard Basset, tracing his rise from unlikely beginnings to world-beating mastery. At its heart is a review of his newly republished memoir Tasting Victory, a story not just of (red) wine, but of persistence, humility and the long, disciplined pursuit of excellence.
18 BUILDING THE FRAMEWORK
Francis Ho, chair of the CLLS Construction Law Committee, on the vital role of construction in the UK economy, guiding the next generation of lawyers, and laying the legal foundations for a complex industry.
28 CONNECTING THE CITY’S LEGAL VOICE
We talk with Carly Hollingsworth, CLLS’s new External Affairs Lead, on amplifying the Society’s influence and deepening member engagement.
36 THE CITY’S MOST CHARMING NIGHT OUT
An evening walking in procession to the Tower of London, listening to spine-tingling choral music above the burial place of Anne Boleyn, and then eating excellent lamb under glittering chandeliers with some of the City’s finest lawyers - we attend the rather amazing CLCS Annual Service and Dinner.
45 FOR PETROLHEADS
It's not just paint - it’s the colour story that comes with it.
Red is my favourite colour, it features heavily in my oil paintings and prints. It is the colour of warning, power, ceremony and action. Fitting, perhaps, for an issue concerned with systems under pressure, institutions deciding what they wish to preserve, and where to act next.
In this edition, we continue our examination of reform within the justice system. David Walbank KC offers a powerful critique of current proposals for criminal trial reform, particularly the suggestion that certain serious cases could be determined by a judge sitting alone rather than by a jury.
That such life-defining consequences could be determined not by a jury of peers, but by a single judge, he tells us, “ought to revolt people.”
His concern is not with judges themselves, but with what may be lost. A single judge, however experienced, brings one set of life experiences, perspectives and biases. A jury brings twelve. It is not that juries are free from prejudice, but their collective nature acts as a safeguard. Biases are tested, challenged and moderated through deliberation. The outcome reflects a broader social judgment.
David also reflects on the wider political backdrop against which these reforms are being proposed, and what it means for public confidence when longstanding principles of justice begin to shift.
Elsewhere, we examine another expanding area of scrutiny: the Financial Conduct Authority’s proposed assumption of antimoney laundering supervision for law firms.
WELCOME TO THE SUMMER EDITION OF CITY SOLICITOR MAGAZINE: THE RED EDITION.
We speak to David Hamilton about what this broader remit could mean in practice, particularly where firms may face overlapping obligations between the FCA and the SRA. As he notes, the FCA’s emphasis on systems and controls allows intervention earlier, and often more aggressively, than firms may be accustomed to.
And it is in responses to proposals like this that the work of the CLLS specialist committees really shines. We turn the spotlight inward, onto the specialist committees of the CLLS, often the quiet engines of the organisation. Bringing together leading practitioners across industries, these committees shape consultation responses, influence policy and help steer the profession through increasingly complex terrain. We speak to the Chairs of the Construction Law and Land Law Committees about the evolving pressures facing their sectors, and the importance of opening these spaces to new voices and fresh energy through associate committee roles.
Community, too, remains central to the profession.
At The Ned, a carefully curated group of Black partners, in-house counsel and investment professionals gathered for an evening of conversation and connection organised by Extense and supported by the CLLS and numerous firms. I was honoured to give the closing remarks, encouraging attendees to think seriously about “what’s next?” Not simply networking for networking’s sake, but transforming relationships into meaningful collaborations and opportunities. We hope this becomes not a one-off, but an annual fixture.
That same spirit of connection is evident in the work of Carly Hollingsworth, who, only two months into her role as External Affairs Lead at the CLLS, is already doing what she does best: bringing people together. Drawing on years of experience across the profession, most recently at the Law Society, she understands that relationships remain one of the legal sector’s greatest assets.
We also reflect on the Annual Banquet of the City of London Solicitors’ Company at Mansion House, bringing together solicitor apprentices, trainees, junior lawyers and senior practitioners from across the profession. It was a reminder that while tradition remains important, the profession is continuing to evolve. The Company is increasingly focusing on widening access and extending its reach to those at the very beginning of their legal careers.
There was tradition too at the Annual Service and Supper of the City of London Solicitors’ Company, where six new Freemen received the Freedom of the City. Maroulla joined the procession from Trinity House to the Tower of London for the service at the Chapel Royal of St Peter ad Vincula. There is something wonderfully theatrical about these ceremonies. The City remains gloriously committed to its rituals, while finding exciting ways to make them relevant in the modern age.
And finally, food.
This issue takes us to Simpsons in the Strand, established in 1828 as a chess club before becoming one of London’s most enduring dining institutions. Perhaps, some traditions survive because they understand how to evolve gracefully alongside change. ■
Salome Coker Editor mail@citysolicitors.org.uk
Comments From the CLLS Chairman
Recently, the well-known legal innovator Richard Susskind wrote a powerful article on LinkedIn challenging readers as to whether they were willing to say publicly that they are against antisemitism. I responded positively but briefly to Richard's challenge, but have been nagged by the thought that mine was not a wholly adequate response. I then heard from law firm leaders considering how best to support their Jewish colleagues.
There are many groups in our society which suffer from harassment and hate. But it feels to many that antisemitism is becoming normalised as an acceptable form of racism in British society. That is shocking. It is therefore only right that I try to use my position at the City of London Law Society (CLLS) and on behalf of City Law to offer support to the Jewish community generally, to Jewish lawyers in our members' workplaces in particular, and assistance to law firms looking to do the same.
Let us all be clear that we can but condemn that:
The number of reported antisemitic incidents in the UK has doubled since the October 2023 attacks on Israel. Who knows what has happened to the number of unreported incidents, but anecdotal evidence would suggest there has been an exponential increase.
Some lawyers should have to worry about when and how to disclose that they are Jewish, knowing that this might provoke some kind of reaction.
Lawyer colleagues feel so physically vulnerable in a society where most take their security for granted. It is small consolation that many say they feel physically safe at work.
Our colleagues fear, not necessarily overt antisemitism, but micro-aggressions and being made to feel that British Jews are in some way responsible for decisions being made by the government of another country.
What can we do about this?
If we accept that the workplace is a microcosm of society, then all law firms must be ready to guard against any risk that what becomes normal in society ends up being reflected at work. Given the role of work in most people’s lives, what we do in our businesses can have a positive impact on our wider communities. That means it is incumbent on all leadership teams to be extra vigilant to ensure that antisemitism does not grow in the workplace. As employers we must all, as I know first-hand so many are, take responsibility for pushing back against any hint of this. Diversity and tolerance remain core values for most responsible businesses, even if some speak less openly about them this year than last.
I hope no-one reading this will consider it trite if I suggest that there are some obvious practical things employers can do to guard against this risk. We can speak in support of our Jewish communities when they are attacked. We can remind colleagues of how threatened their Jewish friends feel; Jews are ordinary people, not a collective noun, who we work with every day. We can offer those in leadership and inclusion roles training on antisemitism. We can call out microaggressions. We can provide flexibility and support
at moments when the threat feels immediate. Most importantly, we can show support, listen and try to understand and empathise. Even just letting Jewish colleagues know you are thinking about them can make a difference to how they feel.
I believe that small changes can have a cumulative impact on workplace culture. My understanding is our Jewish colleagues are not asking for more: what I am told is that most just want to be treated fairly, to feel that work is a safe and supportive environment, and to be able to continue doing their jobs and contributing to the success of UK plc.
I don't pretend that the CLLS is necessarily the right vehicle to provide practical support, but I do make the sincere offer that if anyone feels they need a voice to speak to, we are here to listen and offer such support as we can.
Diversity and inclusion require education, understanding and tolerance. Employers can't solve societal problems, but we can help. Even acknowledging that we have a role to play makes a difference. At the very least, we can demonstrate to our Jewish colleagues that they are valued and supported, and that, when it comes to our values, we mean what we say. ■
Seeing Red
There are colours that decorate, and there are colours that declare. RED, unmistakably, belongs to the latter. It does not sit quietly in the background; it arrives, asserts itself, and insists on being noticed. It is the colour of urgency and appetite, of warning and conviction, of power, danger, and consequence. It is also, perhaps not coincidentally, deeply woven into the fabric of the law itself. From the robes of senior judges to the red boxes of government, it signals authority, seriousness, and decisions that matter.
This issue of CitySolicitor takes RED not simply as a visual motif, but as a way of understanding the moment the profession finds itself in. Because RED is not subtle. It marks the points at which something demands attention. It draws a line. It asks not whether we notice, but how we respond.
Few contributions in this issue capture that sense of urgency more starkly than our interview with David Walbank KC. His response to proposals to abolish jury trials in fraud cases is not measured in careful neutrality but in something far more direct. He is, in his own words, troubled that the debate has been too polite. What is at stake, he argues, is not a procedural refinement but a fundamental shift in how justice is done. When decisions carrying life defining consequences risk being removed from the collective judgment of a jury and placed in the hands of a single individual, the implications are profound. RED, here, is unmistakably the colour of warning. Not a flicker, but a steady, insistent light that demands attention.
That same sense of scrutiny runs through our examination of the Financial Conduct Authority and its expanding reach into the legal profession in a conversation with David Hamilton. As regulatory expectations intensify, law firms are operating in an environment where the margin for error is narrowing and the consequences of misstep are increasingly severe. This is not regulation in the abstract. It is immediate, practical, and deeply felt. The conversations in this issue reveal a profession
navigating that landscape in real time, balancing compliance with judgment, and adapting to a framework that continues to evolve. RED, in this context, is the colour of oversight and exposure. A reminder that the spotlight is not dimming.
Yet RED is not only about pressure from without. It also speaks to what comes from within. Across the City of London Law Society, solicitors are committing time and expertise to the often unseen work of committees, shaping policy, responding to change, and contributing to the direction of the profession itself. We hear from Matthew Hooton and Francis Ho, whose leadership within their respective committees reflects a deeper engagement with the challenges facing their areas of practice. This is work that rarely seeks attention, but quietly sustains the profession’s ability to adapt and progress. RED here is less about alarm and more about energy. The steady, determined drive to improve what already exists.
That internal momentum is also finding expression in new, more intentional efforts to shape how the profession operates. A groundbreaking initiative at The Ned in May, led by Julian Richard, Managing Director of extense and supported by the City of London Law Society, reflects a growing recognition that inclusion cannot sit at the margins of business practice. Instead, it must be built into its foundations. The focus is not on programmes or statements, but on the mechanics of decision making itself: who is in the room, whose voices are heard, and how outcomes are shaped.
What distinguishes this work is its practical emphasis. It looks beyond headline commitments to the everyday realities of how legal businesses function,
from the allocation of work and the composition of teams to the ways in which clients are engaged and relationships are developed. By addressing these underlying structures, the initiative seeks to move inclusion from aspiration to application. RED, in this context, becomes something more constructive. Not a warning, but a signal of intent. A conscious effort to reshape the way business is done.
That sense of momentum is perhaps most clearly embodied in Carly Hollingsworth, who joins the City of London Law Society as External Affairs Lead. Her arrival brings with it a focus on communication, visibility, and the importance of ensuring that the profession’s voice is both heard and understood. In a landscape where perception matters as much as substance, that role takes on particular significance. RED, in this final sense, becomes something more measured. Not urgency, but purpose. Not warning, but intent and passion.
Taken together, these strands form a picture of a profession that is not standing still. It is being challenged, certainly. Pressed, scrutinised, and in some areas pushed to its limits. But it is also responding. Through debate, through engagement, and through a willingness to confront difficult questions rather than avoid them.
So why RED? Because it refuses to be ignored. It marks the moments where something matters enough to demand attention, whether as a warning, a challenge, or a call to act. This issue captures the profession at precisely those points. The question is not whether the red lights are flashing. They are. The question is whether we are prepared to take them seriously. ■
Trial by Fire:
David Walbank KC and the Case for Outrage
There is a curious paradox at the heart of our current moment. Outrage is everywhere and yet, somehow, nowhere. It is performed, traded, exhausted in the daily churn of public discourse. But when something genuinely grave is proposed, something that strikes at the foundations of justice itself, the response is oddly muted. Polite, even.
“David’s argument is not rooted in sentimentality about juries. It is grounded in the nature of fraud itself. At the core of almost every fraud case lies a single question. Dishonesty.”
Is
precisely this absence of true indignation that sits at the centre of this issue’s RED theme. RED not as spectacle, but as warning. RED as the colour of lines being crossed. Few voices capture that sense of urgency more vividly than David Walbank KC at Red Lion Chambers.
A senior barrister with more than three decades of courtroom experience, David is not given to casual provocation. His career has been built not on rhetoric, but on the disciplined craft of advocacy. Yet when he speaks about the proposed abolition of jury trials in fraud cases, the restraint falls away. What emerges instead is something closer to alarm.
“I am troubled,” he says, “that the debate has, if anything, been far too polite.”
It is not a line delivered for effect. It is a diagnosis.
David’s authority on the subject is hard won. His route to the criminal Bar was not straightforward. He began, as many do, in the civil courts, handling a steady diet of personal injury claims, landlord and tenant disputes, and modest contractual matters. It was solid work, but uninspiring. By his own admission, he found it dull enough to contemplate leaving the profession altogether.
Then came a chance opportunity. A criminal case, offered almost by accident. He accepted it with little expectation. What followed was, by his own telling, immediate clarity.
“This is what I thought the Bar was going to be,” he recalls.
Within hours of that first day in court, his practice had transformed. Instructions flooded in. A criminal career took shape almost overnight. For the next two decades, David built a formidable reputation as a fraud specialist, primarily on the
prosecution side. He served as Standing Counsel to the Revenue and Customs Prosecutions Office (‘RCPO’) and to the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills, acting in complex and often high stakes financial cases.
Fifteen years ago, he changed sides, moving into defence work. The shift gave him something few practitioners can claim in equal measure. A panoramic view of the system from both perspectives. Prosecution and defence. State and individual. Power and vulnerability.
It is from that vantage point that he now speaks with such force.
At the heart of his objection to the proposed reforms is a simple but profound concern. Fraud cases, he argues, are not peripheral. They are among the most serious cases heard in the criminal courts, carrying consequences that can amount, in practical terms, to the end of a person’s life.
Sentences for serious fraud have increased dramatically in recent years. Double digit custodial terms are no longer unusual. But it does not end there. Alongside imprisonment comes the machinery of confiscation proceedings, a system David describes as draconian.
These proceedings operate on assumptions that place a heavy burden on defendants. They must prove that their available assets are less than the benefit said to have been derived from the offence. If they fail to do so, the court can impose orders for the full amount. Payment windows are often short. Failure to comply leads to further imprisonment, consecutive to the original sentence.
The cumulative effect is stark.
“For many defendants,” David says, “it is not far off a death sentence in any meaningful sense.”
It is a deliberately unsettling formulation. And it leads directly to what he considers the central injustice of the proposed reforms.
That such life defining consequences could be determined not by a jury of peers, but by a single judge.
“I think people ought to be absolutely revolted by that,” he says.
The word is carefully chosen. Revolted. Not concerned. Not uneasy. Outraged.
David’s argument is not rooted in sentimentality about juries. It is grounded in the nature of fraud itself. At the core of almost every fraud case lies a single question. Dishonesty.
Was the defendant acting honestly or dishonestly according to the standards of ordinary people?
This is not a technical inquiry. It is a moral one. And it is explicitly framed in collective terms. The standards of ordinary people. Plural.
“Who is to apply those standards,” David asks, “if not a jury?”
A single judge, however experienced, brings only one set of life experiences, one set of perspectives, one set of biases. Jurors, by contrast, bring twelve.
It is not that juries are free from prejudice. Quite the opposite. But their collective nature acts as a corrective. Individual biases are tested, challenged, moderated in the deliberation room. The outcome, imperfect though it may be, reflects a broader social judgment.
To replace that with the view of a single individual is, in David’s words, “extraordinary.”
There is, too, a more subtle concern. One that practitioners rarely articulate so openly.
Judges, like all professionals, are shaped by repetition. Years on the bench can, at times, foster a certain cynicism. A tendency to see patterns, to anticipate behaviour, to form impressions.
David refers to it, with a trace of wryness, as “judge-itis.”
It is not an accusation. It is an observation about human nature. But it reinforces his broader point. The determination of dishonesty, a question so central to fraud cases, should not rest on a single perspective.
If the legal argument is compelling, the practical one is equally so. One of the most persistent justifications for removing juries in complex fraud cases is that they are simply too difficult for lay people to understand.
David dismisses this entirely.
“I have never, ever, ever seen a jury that did not understand the case.”
It is a statement borne of experience rather than theory. Thirty five years of jury trials. Cases lasting months. Mountains of evidence. Technical detail. Financial structures. Regulatory frameworks.
And yet, he insists, juries understand.
If they do not, the fault lies not with them, but with the advocates.
“The art of advocacy,” he says, “is making complex things simple.”
Too often, he suggests, lawyers fall into the opposite trap. Obscuring rather than illuminating. Complicating rather than clarifying. But where advocates do their job properly, juries follow.
The principle is ancient. Its application, in his view, depends fundamentally on the jury.
To remove juries from fraud cases is therefore not a procedural adjustment. It is a structural shift. One that alters the balance between state and individual in a profound way.
David’s concern extends beyond the courtroom to the political context in which these proposals have emerged. He is visibly troubled by the fact that such reforms are being advanced by a government led by individuals with backgrounds in human rights law.
He stops short of outright condemnation, but the implication is clear. There is, he suggests, a dissonance between the principles those roles are meant to embody and the policies now being pursued.
“I have enormous faith in juries,” he says.
“I would take a jury one hundred times out of one hundred over a single judge.”
His description of how juries engage with long trials is striking. The initial resentment as they are pulled from their daily lives. The disruption, the financial strain. And then, something shifts.
“They really get into it,” he says.
Jurors form bonds. They take their role seriously. They understand the gravity of what is being asked of them. Over time, the process becomes not just a duty, but a shared endeavour.
David speaks of this with something close to admiration.
“I have enormous faith in juries,” he says. “I would take a jury one hundred times out of one hundred over a single judge.”
It is not blind faith. It is a measured assessment of outcomes. In his experience, juries do not convict in the face of weak evidence. They do not produce perverse verdicts. They apply the burden and standard of proof with rigour.
Occasionally, defendants are acquitted where the evidence appears strong. But this, he argues, is not a flaw. It is a feature of a system designed to protect against wrongful conviction.
“It is better that one hundred guilty men go free than that a single innocent man is convicted.”
More broadly, he is critical of the parliamentary process surrounding the legislation. He questions whether an issue of such constitutional significance should be subject to party whipping at all. In his view, it calls for individual judgment. A conscience vote.
The spectacle of MPs supporting the measure along party lines, or abstaining rather than opposing it outright, strikes him as deeply troubling.
“It is shameful,” he says.
Strong words. But then, strong words are the point.
This is where the RED theme returns, not as a stylistic device, but as a lens. What David is articulating is not merely a legal objection. It is a call to recover a sense of proportion. To recognise when something warrants more than polite disagreement.
Because at its core, this debate is about trust. Trust in ordinary people. Trust in collective judgment. Trust in a system that, for all its imperfections, has long placed the determination of guilt in the hands of the many rather than the one.
To remove juries from fraud cases is to redraw that line.
Quietly. Technically. Perhaps even pragmatically.
But for those like David, who have spent a lifetime inside the system, the implications are anything but modest.
They are, in the truest sense, red line issues.
And if the response to them remains polite, one is left to wonder what, if anything, would provoke the outrage he believes is so urgently required. ■
“A Very Confused Landscape”
There is a moment, midway through our conversation, when David Hamilton pauses, only briefly, before landing on a phrase that neatly captures the profession’s current unease. The Financial Conduct Authority’s proposed assumption of anti-money laundering supervision for law firms, he says, has “all the ingredients for a very confused regulatory landscape.”
It is not a throwaway line. Nor is it particularly dramatic in tone. But it lingers, because David is not given to exaggeration. As a partner at Howard Kennedy LLP, specialising in regulatory enforcement and financial crime, he spends much of his professional life advising firms and individuals at precisely the point where regulatory theory meets real world consequence.
He sees what happens when systems fail, when regulators intervene, and when businesses, often already under pressure, must navigate overlapping investigations and uncertain expectations. That vantage point makes him an unusually grounded guide to what the Financial Conduct Authority’s expanding remit could mean in practice.
And in David's telling, this is not simply a story about regulatory reform. It is a story about pace, scale, and the risk of misalignment, between regulators, between sectors, and between ambition and execution.
David’s background is rooted in enforcement. He advises companies and individuals facing investigations, many of which touch on financial crime, antimoney laundering, bribery, and wider compliance failures. Alongside that, he works with clients proactively, helping them design and implement systems intended to withstand regulatory scrutiny.
Or, as he puts it with characteristic understatement, to avoid “getting into the soup.”
That dual perspective, both reactive and preventative, shapes how he views the Financial Conduct Authority’s approach to anti-money laundering. One of the most important points he makes is also one of the least widely understood outside specialist circles. Enforcement in this area is rarely about proving that money laundering actually occurred.
Instead, it is about whether a firm had adequate systems and controls in place to identify and mitigate the risk.
“The FCA’s enforcement approach doesn’t require proof that money laundering occurred. The focus is on whether the firm’s systems and controls were robust enough to detect it if it had."
This is not a trivial distinction. It fundamentally alters how firms must think about compliance. The risk is not merely being complicit in wrongdoing, but being
unable to demonstrate that one could have prevented it; recent actions against Starling Bank and Monzo being cautionary examples of inadequate AML systems and controls (specifically, insufficiently rigorous due diligence when onboarding customers).
For the Financial Conduct Authority, David suggests, anti-money laundering has become the central pillar of financial crime enforcement. Its breadth makes it unavoidable. It can arise from almost any form of criminal activity, and its prevention requires a holistic view of a firm’s operations.
Crucially, it is also an area where the regulator can act decisively without needing to prove underlying criminal conduct. The focus on systems and controls allows the Financial Conduct Authority to intervene earlier, and often more aggressively, than might otherwise be the case.
That enforcement philosophy is well established in financial services. The question now is what happens when it is applied, at scale, to the legal sector.
At one level, the rationale for the shift is easy to understand. The United Kingdom’s anti money laundering regime has come under increasing scrutiny in recent years, both domestically and internationally. While bodies such as the Financial Action Task Force have broadly endorsed the United Kingdom’s framework, there is a growing sense, within government at least, that more needs to be done.
David points to several factors. The evolving financial crime landscape, particularly in sectors such as real estate and art. The role of professional services firms as potential enablers, whether through legal advice or the structuring of ownership arrangements. And, perhaps most politically sensitive of all, perceptions of corruption.
Transparency International’s Corruption Perceptions Index, he notes, has seen the United Kingdom slip in recent rankings. That matters, not only in terms of reputation, but in shaping policy responses.
“There is a very real recognition of the financial crime threat,” he says. And from that recognition flows a willingness to act.
The Financial Conduct Authority, with its statutory powers and experience of large scale investigations, presents an obvious candidate to take on a more prominent role. Compared to professional body supervisors, it has deeper resources, more
extensive enforcement tools, and a track record of imposing significant financial penalties.
But that does not necessarily mean the transition will be straightforward. For David, one of the most immediate challenges lies in the overlap between the Financial Conduct Authority and existing regulators, particularly the Solicitors Regulation Authority. The Solicitors Regulation Authority will retain responsibility for conduct, fitness and propriety, and the day to day regulation of legal practice. The Financial Conduct Authority, meanwhile, will focus on anti-money laundering systems and controls.
In theory, those roles are distinct. In practice, they are likely to intersect frequently.
“How should these intersecting compliance issues be investigated? How do the regulators avoid duplication? How can they make the process as streamlined as possible for businesses that are still trying to operate while under investigation?”
These are not abstract concerns. Regulatory investigations are resource intensive, disruptive, and often prolonged. The prospect of parallel inquiries, each with its own priorities, processes, and potential sanctions, raises the risk of what David describes as “piling on.”
He points to past examples in other contexts, such as the LIBOR investigations, where multiple regulators pursued overlapping enforcement actions. While coordination has improved in recent years, the potential for unfairness remains if cases are not managed carefully.
“It needs to be done in a coordinated way, so that you do not end up with a completely unfair battering of the firm.”
The transition period will be particularly delicate. Establishing clear lines of responsibility, effective communication channels, and a shared understanding of priorities between regulators will be essential. Without that, firms may find themselves caught between competing expectations.
Yet even if coordination issues can be resolved, a deeper challenge remains. Whether the Financial Conduct Authority can successfully adapt its approach to a fundamentally different sector.
Translating that philosophy into a legal sector context will require nuance. It will also require a willingness to engage with how law firms actually operate, rather than how regulators might expect them to.
Layered on top of these structural challenges is a more immediate concern. Capacity.
The Financial Conduct Authority is already in the midst of significant expansion. New areas of focus, including non financial misconduct and the regulation of cryptoassets, are stretching its remit further. Each brings its own complexities, its own learning curves, and its own demands on resources.
Against that backdrop, the addition of anti money laundering supervision for professional services firms represents a substantial increase in workload.
David asks, only half rhetorically;
“Are they biting off more than they can chew?”
It is not just a question of institutional capability. Timing matters too. The pace at which these changes are being introduced risks creating pressure points, not only for the regulator, but for the firms it oversees.
“There is a huge amount of change going on within a very short space of time,and I am not sure whether the Financial Conduct Authority is equipped to handle it in such a short space of time.”
Compounding this is the issue of staffing. Like many organisations, the Financial Conduct Authority has faced challenges in recruitment and retention. Losing experienced personnel while simultaneously expanding responsibilities is not an ideal combination.
“We are living in interesting times,” he says, with a faint hint of irony.
Financial services firms, David observes, operate in a very different environment to law firms or accountancy practices. Their business models, client bases, products, and risk profiles are distinct. So too are their resources.
Large banks may have extensive compliance teams, sophisticated monitoring systems, and significant budgets dedicated to regulatory risk. Many law firms do not. Indeed, outside the largest commercial practices, the sector is dominated by small and medium sized firms, often with limited capacity to absorb additional regulatory burdens.
“The vast majority of businesses that would be subject to this regime are very small, Very, very small.”
This raises a critical question. How will the Financial Conduct Authority calibrate its expectations?
On paper, the regulator is accustomed to dealing with smaller firms. But in practice, many of those firms fall outside the scope of the Money Laundering Regulations 2017 (MLR), which impose additional layers of compliance requirements on inscope firms (like law firms).. Such firms must still comply with the Financial Conduct Authority's baseline financial crime obligations, which are not as prescriptive. Extending an MLR systems and controls-driven enforcement model to thousands of small legal and accountancy practices presents a different kind of challenge.
There is a risk that standards developed in the context of large financial institutions could be applied, intentionally or otherwise, to much smaller businesses.
“You do not understand my business, you do not understand my clients,” he imagines firms saying. “And you are applying standards designed for banks.”
That perception, if it takes hold, could undermine confidence in the regime. It also highlights the importance of proportionality. Not every firm presents the same level of risk, and not every firm has the same capacity to manage it.
David is clear that regulators are not necessarily seeking perfection. What matters, in the Financial Conduct Authority’s eyes, is trajectory; evidence that firms are improving, learning, and responding appropriately to risk.
That emphasis on continuous improvement is echoed in David’s past client work. He recalls one client who actively welcomed ‘red’ findings in internal audits, viewing them as a sign that the firm was willing to identify and address weaknesses rather than gloss over them.
None of this is to suggest that the policy objective is misguided. Strengthening the United Kingdom’s response to financial crime is, in David's view, both necessary and inevitable. The question is not whether to act, but how.
And here, his concerns return to the same themes. Coordination, proportionality, and pace.
There is also, he notes, a cyclical quality to regulatory reform. Periods of consolidation are followed by fragmentation, only for the process to reverse again years later. The creation and subsequent reintegration of bodies such as the Payment Services Regulator is one example among many.
“You can set your watch by it,” he says wryly. “Every ten or fifteen years, people have a completely different view of how regulation should be structured.”
The Financial Conduct Authority’s expanded anti-money laundering role may ultimately prove effective. It may bring greater consistency, stronger enforcement, and a clearer sense of accountability. But equally, it may expose fault lines, between regulators, between sectors, and between ambition and reality.
For law firms, the immediate task is not to resolve those questions, but to prepare for them.
That means taking anti-money laundering compliance seriously, not as a box ticking exercise, but as a core aspect of risk management. It means investing, where possible, in systems and processes that can withstand scrutiny. And it means recognising that the regulatory environment is becoming more complex, not less.
At the same time, there is a role for engagement. The consultation process, and the early stages of implementation, will be critical in shaping how the regime operates in practice. Firms that can articulate their concerns, particularly around proportionality and practicality, may be able to influence the outcome.
As for David, his position is characteristically measured. He is not convinced that the shift was strictly necessary. He is wary of the risks. But he is also pragmatic.
“We are living in interesting times,” he says, with a faint hint of irony.
It is a phrase that has become something of a cliché. But in this context, it feels apt. The coming years will test not only the Financial Conduct Authority’s capacity to expand its reach, but the legal sector’s ability to adapt to a new and more demanding regulatory reality.
Whether that results in a more robust system, or simply a more complicated one, remains to be seen.
For now, as David puts it, it is a case of wait and see.
Inside the UK & Ireland Legal Insights Report 2026: AI, integration,
and the firms
pulling ahead
AI use across UK and Ireland law firms is now near-universal. Nearly 9 in 10 legal professionals use the technology in some capacity, with 70% adopting it within the past year alone. For a profession that tends to move carefully on new technology, that's a remarkable pace. And the knock-on effects are showing up everywhere: in caseloads, in how firms talk to clients, in the way they price their work.
Those numbers come from Clio's inaugural UK & Ireland Legal Insights Report 2026, based on surveys of more than 500 legal professionals and 500 members of the public. The takeaway? Adoption has already happened. The harder question for firms now is how to turn scattered AI use into sustained value across the full client journey, from intake to resolution.
Four dynamics shaping the region's legal market
The report identifies four forces defining the UK and Ireland legal landscape right now:
1. Technology has moved from adoption to execution, and workflow design is now the differentiator.
2. Governance gaps are creating risk around data security and client disclosure.
3. Clients weigh reputation, experience, and communication alongside price.
4. Fixed-fee billing has become the dominant pricing model.
The gains are real for firms that integrate deeply When firms get integration right, the numbers are hard to ignore. Among active AI users:
• 81% say AI helps them respond to clients more quickly and proactively
• 78% are handling a higher volume of work
• 77% say the quality of their legal output has improved
• 71% say AI is reducing cost per matter by absorbing drafting, research, and admin work
That said, only 27% of firms have embedded AI widely across the organisation. The majority describe partial or minimal integration, confined to specific tasks or teams. That difference between light use and deep integration is where most of the untapped value still sits, waiting to be claimed.
Integration is the top barrier, and it hits mid-market firms hardest So why aren't more firms getting there? More than a third of legal professionals (37%) point to a familiar culprit: integrating new tools into existing workflows. Among mid-market firms, that figure rises to 40%, compared with 23% in smaller practices.
The real cost of fragmented systems shows up in a typical working day. Context-switching between applications. Re-entering the same data into different tools. Coordination work that absorbs the attention that fee earners would otherwise spend on substantive legal work.
Governance hasn't kept pace with use
Governance sits right alongside integration as an area where firms are exposed. Adoption has moved faster than policy, and 17% of firms have no AI policy in place at all, even though they're allowing and often encouraging AI use day-today.
The disclosure picture is wider still. 81% of firms say they tell clients about AI use at least occasionally. Only 7% of clients recall their lawyer actually doing it. That's a 74-point gap between what firms intend and what clients experience.
Public attitudes suggest firms can't afford to leave that gap unaddressed. 79% of the public think lawyers should disclose when they use AI, which makes transparency a client-trust issue as well as a compliance one.
Pricing is shifting with the work
The business model itself is moving too. As AI compresses the time that once justified billable hours, pricing is catching up. Fixed or flat fees now account for 53% of matters across UK and Ireland firms, while hourly billing has dropped to 32%.
Firms that price with intent are better placed to compete on value and protect healthy margins along the way.
What this means for UK and Ireland firms in 2026
Adoption across the region is already happening. The remaining work, and where most of the value still sits, is moving from scattered, task-level AI use to cohesive, firm-wide workflows that free up capacity, improve client experience, and reduce risk. Solo, small, and mid-sized firms are often the most agile in moments like this, and the report suggests they stand to gain the most from moving decisively.
For the full findings, including data on workload, wellbeing, and how clients choose lawyers, read the UK & Ireland Legal Insights Report 2026 here. https:// www.clio.com/uk/guides/2026-legal-insights-report/ ■
The Quiet Architects of the City
The City of London Law Society’s Specialist Committees are, in many ways, the quiet engines of the profession — bringing together leading practitioners to shape best practice, respond to industry change and, often behind the scenes, influence how law is applied day to day.
In this issue, we speak to two Committee chairs working at the heart of sectors that quite literally underpin the UK economy. From construction to land law, their work is practical, technical and deeply embedded in the fabric of commercial life. Yet, as both make clear, it is also evolving — driven by the need for greater efficiency, broader engagement and a new generation of lawyers ready to take these disciplines forward. Together, these conversations offer a snapshot of how specialist Committees continue to adapt, collaborate and quietly build the frameworks on which the City depends.
BUILDING THE FRAMEWORK
Spend any time with Francis Ho, a Partner in the Construction, Engineering and Projects team at Charles Russell Speechlys LLP, and one thing becomes immediately clear: construction is not simply another legal specialism. It is, he says, one of the structural pillars of the UK economy, hiding in plain sight.
“It’s one of the UK’s biggest employers and accounts for six to seven per cent of GDP. It covers everything from major infrastructure and energy projects to new buildings and refurbishment and maintenance.”
It’s a striking reminder. For all the attention lavished on finance, tech and media, the built environment remains both foundational and vast. It is also, as Francis is keen to highlight, a sector whose legal architecture is complex, underappreciated and, at times, imperfectly understood, even within the profession itself. That dual reality, scale and obscurity goes a long way to explaining both Francis’ own career path and ambitions as chair of the City of London Law Society’s Construction Law Committee.
He took on the role in September last year, after more than a decade on the Committee and over five years as vice chair. In many ways, his appointment reflects the Committee’s traditional continuity: a relatively stable body of senior, construction lawyers, many of whom have served for years, even decades. Yet if Francis represents continuity, he is equally focused on evolution.
To understand that balance, it helps to start with the Committee itself; an entity that is, by design and by history, somewhat idiosyncratic.
Unlike many professional bodies, the CLLS Specialist Committees have historically operated without rigid constitutions or uniform structures. Each has developed its own identity over time, shaped by its members and area of practice. The Construction Law Committee is no exception. Set up by well-known construction lawyer (and former Chair) Marshall Levine in the early 1990s, when the first PFI projects took shape, it has long been regarded as the leading forum for noncontentious (or “front-end”) construction law in the UK.
“There probably isn’t anyone like us around,” Francis says. He has looked. While there are international counterparts, committees within the American Bar Association or the New York City Bar Association, for example, these tend to be larger, more open and more transient in their membership. By contrast, the CLLS Construction Law Committee has traditionally been smaller, more selective and more stable. While there are pros and cons to both approaches, that stability has its advantages for the CLLS. It fosters deep expertise and continuity of thought. But it also presents challenges, particularly in a profession and a sector that are both evolving rapidly.
Francis is candid about that tension. Committee membership today is more structured than when he joined in 2014, when, as he recalls, a simple expression of interest and committee support could suffice. Now there is a more formal process, though seniority and reputation in the field still carry weight. Even so, the legacy of long tenures, with some members having served for decades, raises inevitable questions about renewal.
“Construction is a key industry but most people don’t know enough about it.”
The PFI boom is long past but other aspects remain.
“I prefer to operate through a set of agreed principles”, explains Francis. “They frame a common purpose that everyone can return to.”
That positioning matters. Construction law is often loosely divided into contentious and non-contentious work, a distinction Francis readily admits is “slightly crude”, given the overlap between the two. Contentious practitioners have a range of established forums, including arbitration bodies and adjudication societies. For those who put major projects together, however, the CLLS Committee occupies a more singular space.
“One thing the CLLS is trying to move away from its Specialist Committees is the idea that people can effectively nominate their successors. We need to be open to people who will do a good job, who have the energy and who bring diversity of opinion.”
That word “energy” comes up more than once. It is central to how Francis views his role as chair, and to the direction he wants the Committee to take.
His route to chairing followed a familiar path. The vice chair typically stands for the role, though there is always a vote and hence the possibility of challenge. In Francis’ case, after five and a half years as vice chair and what he describes nonchalantly as being “a significant contributor to the Committee’s work”, the transition was uncontested.
But the position, he is quick to point out, is not ceremonial. It brings with it a substantial workload and, more importantly, an opportunity, perhaps a limited one, to shape the Committee’s direction over a relatively short term of three to five years.
“You can look at it in five-year periods. How have we grown? What have we achieved?”
For Francis, the starting point is both simple and ambitious: to increase the Committee’s output and reinforce its relevance.
At a basic level, there are expectations from the CLLS, including the production of at least two substantive pieces of work each year. That has not always been achieved. Addressing that is, in his words, “back to basics”. But beyond that lies a broader objective: ensuring that the Committee continues to play a meaningful role in shaping and supporting the construction industry.
That role is, by necessity, a delicate one. The construction sector is populated by a wide array of stakeholders, each with their own interests and perspectives, from architects and engineers to contractors, subcontractors and developers. Many are represented by their own industry bodies, often with clear agendas driven by their memberships.
What the CLLS Construction Law Committee seeks to provide is something different.
“We look at ourselves as being objective and fairly independent. There are a lot of vested interests in the industry. We try to stand back and say: what is a fair way to proceed? What is the nub of it?”
That perspective is particularly valuable in areas of recurring controversy, such as the use of cash retentions. These arrangements, whereby a small percentage of a contractor’s payment is withheld until completion, are deeply embedded in construction practice and deeply contentious.
Francis describes the retention system with characteristic clarity. Main contractors, known as Tier 1 contractors, are typically paid monthly in arrears for work completed, but a portion, usually three or five per cent, is retained as a form of security. In principle, it provides protection against defects or incomplete work. In practice, in an industry of razor-thin profit margins, it can create significant problems, particularly further down the contractual chain.
“As you go further and further down the tiers of contractors, it gets worse. Tier 2 contractors and those beneath them may find themselves waiting indefinitely for sums that represent not profit but the cost of labour and materials already expended. In some cases, retentions are never returned.
The issue has attracted attention from the government, which has now promised to ban them, and the Committee has previously contributed to consultations on potential reforms, including the possible abolition of retentions. It is a clear example of the Committee’s reactive work, responding to policy developments and offering an informed, balanced view.
But Francis is equally keen to emphasise its proactive role.
A significant part of that lies in the development of precedents and guidance, practical tools designed to improve consistency and efficiency across the industry. These include template agreements, such as the Committee’s model letter of intent, as well as guidance on more specialist issues like third party rights.
The latter addresses a fundamental limitation of English law: that generally only the parties to a contract can enforce it. In the context of construction projects, which often involve a complex web of relationships; developers, funders, contractors, occupiers, that doctrine can be problematic.
“Construction is a key industry but most people don’t know enough about it.”
That lack of awareness begins early. Construction law is rarely a prominent feature of legal education, leaving many trainees, junior lawyers and law students unfamiliar with the field. Yet those who do encounter it often find it unexpectedly captivating.
“It’s very practical, you’re dealing with people and with a physical environment. You can see it in action. It’s very tangible.”
By opening up the training programme, both geographically and, potentially, to those considering a career in the area, the Committee hopes to broaden that exposure and, in time, attract more talent into the field.
That focus on the next generation is also reflected in one of the Committee’s more distinctive initiatives: the creation of an Associates’ Committee. Comprising lawyers from member firms below partner-level, it operates alongside the main Committee, providing a platform for emerging voices and an insight for its members into how its parent committee functions.
“The idea is to help bring through the next generation. It is, in many ways, a recognition that the long-term health of both the Committee and the wider profession depends on renewal.”
Diversity, too, forms part of that conversation. The construction industry has long struggled with gender imbalance, particularly on site. While the picture is somewhat different within construction law, where many law firms now have strong female representation, perceptions can lag behind reality.
“It’s very practical, you’re dealing with people and with a physical environment. You can see it in action. It’s very tangible.”
Third party rights or collateral warranties provide a mechanism to bridge that gap, allowing parties such as purchasers or tenants to rely on the obligations of those who designed or built a project. As he notes, without such mechanisms, the legal and commercial risks associated with defects could be difficult, if not impossible, to manage.
The Committee also devotes time and attention to issues affecting international construction projects through a new sub-committee. Alongside technical outputs, the Committee is also focused on something more outward facing: education.
Its biennial training programme for junior construction lawyers, Foundations, has grown significantly in recent years and has become a notable part of its work. Delivered free of charge and hosted by member firms, the programme spans five half-day sessions and is aimed primarily at London lawyers in private practice.
This year, it is being expanded further, with sessions to be simultaneously broadcast live online in a bid to reach a wider audience.
The rationale is both altruistic and pragmatic. On one level, it is about “giving back”, helping to raise standards across the profession and ensuring that lawyers entering the field have a solid grounding in its principles. On another, it is about visibility.
“Someone told me recently that there are no women in construction. That’s not true, of course. It’s a problem we have been working for decades to fix and there are now many women construction lawyers. But we need to make that visible. The job is far from done.”
Visibility, in fact, is a recurring theme. Whether through training, publications or engagement with policy debates, much of what Francis is seeking to do as chair can be understood as an effort to ensure that the Committee and the expertise it represents, remains both relevant and recognised.
That is no small task, particularly given the voluntary nature of the work. Committee members balance their contributions with demanding roles in private practice and progress is necessarily incremental.
“You have to collaborate,” Francis says, with a wry acknowledgment of the obvious. Bringing in new members, with fresh energy and perspectives, is part of that strategy. So, too, is a renewed focus on teamwork, both within the Committee and amidst the wider industry. He says that he has been indebted to his predecessors and the vice chair and secretary as sounding boards.
For all that, there is a sense that Francis relishes the challenge. His approach is measured rather than radical, grounded in a clear understanding of what the Committee has been and what it can be.
If construction is, as he advocates, one of the UK’s foundational industries, then the legal frameworks that underpin it, and the lawyers who shape those frameworks, matter more than is often recognised. Through the work of the CLLS Construction Law Committee and under Francis’ stewardship, there is a quiet but determined effort to ensure that those frameworks are not only maintained but improved.
It is, in its own way, a form of construction: less visible than cranes on a skyline, perhaps, but no less essential.
CLLS Construction Law Training, Foundations, is presented by the CLLS‘ Construction Law Committee. the courses is intended for solicitors, paralegals, trainees and solicitor-apprentices new to the area of construction law or seeking to refresh their knowledge. Construction procurement, performance security, disputes, building safety and other topics are covered, with talks given by some of the most eminent practitioners in this field. Foundations is free of charge and takes plce across five Thursday afternoons in Octobet 2026. For more details, including how to attend, please contact Liz Thomas at (liz.thomas@clls.org).
Laying the Groundwork
For Matthew Hooton, a partner at Simmons & Simmons LLP, real estate law was not so much a calling but more somewhat of an accident, albeit a happy one.
“ My parents suggested I do a law degree,” he recalls with a shrug of understatement. “And it turned out to be something I really enjoyed.”
Three decades on, that accidental beginning has become a deeply embedded career. 16 years at Ashurst LLP, nearly 13 at Simmons, and a reputation built on the steady, meticulous business of land transactions have placed him at the centre of a discipline that, much like construction, tends to be overlooked despite its fundamental importance.
Because if construction shapes the physical skyline, land law quietly determines how that skyline is owned, financed and transferred. Every building, every development, every investment ultimately rests on the legal certainty that real estate lawyers provide.
It is that underlying function; practical, technical and essential, that defines both Matthew’s practice and his new role as chair of the City of London Law Society Land Law Committee.
He stepped into the position at the beginning of this year, taking over from Jackie Newsted, and with it inherits a Committee whose influence is perhaps less visible than some, but no less significant.
Indeed, if there is one achievement that encapsulates the Committee’s impact, it is the development of the City of London Law Society Certificate of Title, a document that has become a quiet cornerstone of modern real estate transactions.
At its simplest, the Certificate of Title is a standardised report on property title, used primarily in financing transactions. But its importance lies in
what it replaced: a fragmented landscape in which different firms produced different reports, often duplicating effort and introducing inefficiencies into already complex deals.
“The idea was to standardise the process, to create something that everyone could rely on, that would save time and avoid unnecessary repetition.”
The effect has been profound. By establishing a common framework, the Certificate has streamlined transactions, reduced friction between parties and created a shared language for lawyers, lenders and clients alike. It is, in many ways, a classic example of the committee at its best; identifying a practical problem and solving it in a way that benefits the entire market.
That ethos continues to guide Matthew’s thinking as chair.
“If people know what we’re doing, they’re more likely to engage with it. And that benefits everyone.”
A significant part of his agenda is, quite simply, to build on what already exists. The Certificate of Title, while widely used, is not static. As market practice evolves and legal frameworks shift, it requires regular review and refinement. The same is true of the Committee’s broader suite of precedent documents, which serve as templates and guidance for practitioners across the City.
“Continuing to develop and update those precedents is a key priority. It’s about facilitating transactional efficiency and making sure the documents reflect current practice.”
It is a theme that runs through much of what the Committee does. Real estate law, particularly at the transactional end, is a discipline defined by detail and process. Small inefficiencies, multiplied across large deals, can have significant consequences. Conversely, well-designed frameworks can save time, reduce costs and improve certainty for all involved.
That focus on efficiency is not merely technical. It is also collaborative.
One of the aspects Matthew clearly values about the Committee is the way it brings together practitioners from across firms in an environment that is notably open and collegiate. In a profession often characterised by competition, the ability to share ideas and experiences frankly is both unusual and, he suggests, highly productive.
“Transactional lawyers tend to be quite collaborative. There’s a lot of open and honest discussion.”
That culture has been central to the Committee’s success to date, and it is something Matthew is keen to preserve and deepen. If anything, his ambition is to draw members in more actively, encouraging greater participation and engagement in the Committee’s work.
Part of that involves something relatively simple, but increasingly important in a post-pandemic professional landscape: getting people back into a room together.
“We’re looking to host more talks and in-person events. To share best practice, to bring in external speakers, and to make the Committee’s work more visible.”
The emphasis on visibility is telling. Like many Specialist Committees, much of the Land Law Committee’s output operates behind the scenes. Its precedents are widely used, its influence broadly felt, but its profile is comparatively low.
That is something Matthew would like to change, not out of a desire for recognition for its own sake, but because greater awareness can enhance the Committee’s impact.
“If people know what we’re doing, they’re more likely to engage with it. And that benefits everyone.”
To that end, plans are already underway for a series of events, though details are still being finalised. The intention is to create forums that are both informative and accessible, drawing in not only Committee members but the wider legal community.
It is also, implicitly, about reinforcing the relevance of the Committee at a time when the real estate sector itself is undergoing significant change. From evolving regulatory requirements to shifting market dynamics, the landscape in which land lawyers operate is far from static.
Against that backdrop, the need for clear, consistent and up-to-date guidance becomes even more pressing.
For Matthew, however, the role of chair is not about radical reinvention. There is a quiet pragmatism to his approach, shaped perhaps by years spent navigating the complexities of transactions where precision matters more than rhetoric.
His focus is on continuity, improvement and engagement, ensuring that the Committee continues to do what it has long done well, while adapting to the demands of a changing profession.
That includes recognising the importance of communication. The Committee’s work, valuable though it is, cannot exist in a vacuum. By engaging more actively with its members and the wider market, it can both inform and be informed, a two-way process that strengthens its output.
It also reflects a broader truth about real estate law itself. For all its technicality, it is ultimately a peopledriven practice. Deals are negotiated, relationships are built, and outcomes are shaped not just by documents, but by the individuals behind them. That human element is something Matthew clearly enjoys. Asked what has kept him in the field for so long, he points not to any single aspect, but to a combination of intellectual curiosity and practical problem-solving.
“I enjoy the research, the analysis, but also the fact that you’re dealing with real situations, real issues.”
It is a sentiment that resonates across many areas of commercial law, but perhaps particularly in real
estate, where the abstract world of legal principles meets the tangible reality of land and buildings. In that sense, his career, accidental though its beginnings may have been, has found a natural alignment. And as chair of the CLLS Land Law Committee, he now finds himself in a position to shape not just individual transactions, but the frameworks that underpin them.
The challenge, as ever, lies in balancing the demands of that role with the pressures of practice.
Like his counterparts on other committees, Matthew’s work for the CLLS is undertaken alongside a full-time career, requiring careful prioritisation and, at times, delegation.
Yet there is little sense of reluctance. If anything, his approach suggests a quiet commitment to the idea that the profession benefits when its members invest time and effort beyond their immediate commercial responsibilities.
That investment may not always be visible. There are no cranes or scaffolding to mark the progress of a new precedent document, no ribbon-cutting ceremonies for a revised Certificate of Title. But the impact is there nonetheless, embedded in the smoother running of transactions and the greater certainty with which deals are done.
In a legal landscape that often celebrates the high-profile and the contentious, the work of the CLLS Land Law Committee is, by comparison, understated. It operates in the background, refining processes, updating standards and facilitating the everyday business of the City.
Under Matthew’s stewardship, that work looks set to continue; steady, practical and quietly influential. And if construction provides the skyline, and finance the capital, it is land law that ensures the ground beneath it all remains secure.
CLLS Construction Law Training, Foundations, is presented by the CLLS' Construction Law Committee. the course is inteneded for solicitors, paralegals, trainees and solicitor-apprentices new to the arae of construction law or seeking to refresh their knowledge. Construction procurement, performance security, disputes, building safety and other topics are covered, with talks given by some of the most eminent practioners in this field. Foundations is free of charge and takes place across five Thursday afternoons in October 2026. For more details, including how to attend, pleade contact Liz Thomas at (lizthomas@clls.org).
Law Firm Insurance in 2026: Key Questions Answered
The insurance landscape for law firms is shifting. While professional indemnity insurance (PII) remains a regulatory requirement, firms are facing a broader and more complex range of risks, from cyber threats to increased regulatory scrutiny. Here are the key questions firms should be asking in 2026.
Has the PII market improved?
To an extent.
After several years of sharp increases, premiums have stabilised for many firms. However, insurers remain highly selective. Areas such as conveyancing, high transaction volumes, and client money exposure continue to attract scrutiny.
Firms with strong processes and a clean claims history are seeing the best outcomes. Pricing may have steadied, but underwriting discipline has not.
Why is renewal still so detailed?
Because risk has evolved.
Insurers now focus heavily on how firms operate, including file management, financial controls, and fraud prevention measures. With the rise in email compromise and fraudulent transactions, firms that can clearly demonstrate strong internal controls are in a far better position at renewal.
Do we need cyber insurance if we have PII?
In most cases, yes.
PII often provides limited cover for cyber incidents, particularly where losses arise from internal process failures or social engineering attacks. Cyber insurance is designed to fill that gap, covering incident response, data breaches, business interruption, and ransomware. Many policies also include preventative support, such as system monitoring and access to specialist response teams.
For most firms, it is now a core cover rather than an optional extra. What is management liability?
Management liability protects partners, directors, and senior decision-makers.
It covers exposures such as regulatory investigations, employment disputes, and allegations of mismanagement, areas that are becoming more common with increased oversight and a more litigious environment. For growing firms or those undergoing change, this is often overlooked but highly valuable protection.
Alex Hill
Are firms missing any key risks?
Yes, client-related risks.
Policies such as executor and inheritance insurance, and unoccupied property cover during probate, are becoming increasingly relevant. They protect clients from personal liability and disputes, while also reducing the firm’s exposure to potential claims. Despite this, they remain underutilised across the sector.
How has risk changed for law firms?
Significantly.
Risk is no longer limited to legal advice. Operational and technological exposures, particularly cyber risk and financial crime, are now among the most material threats. At the same time, regulatory scrutiny has increased, placing greater emphasis on governance and internal controls.
How has risk changed for law firms?
Significantly.
Risk is no longer limited to legal advice. Operational and technological exposures, particularly cyber risk and financial crime, are now among the most material threats. At the same time, regulatory scrutiny has increased, placing greater emphasis on governance and internal controls.
What are insurers looking for?
Clarity and control.
Firms that understand their risk profile, maintain clear processes, and actively manage their procedures are viewed more favourably. It is no longer just about what work a firm does, but how well it is managed.
What should firms be doing now?
Start early and take a proactive approach.
Engage with your broker well ahead of renewal, review how your risk profile has evolved, and ensure your cover reflects how the firm actually operates. Looking beyond PII is key, cyber and management liability are now fundamental parts of a wellstructured programme.
Final Thoughts
PII remains central, but it is no longer enough on its own.
Firms taking a broader, more strategic approach to insurance are better positioned to manage risk, protect their clients, and operate with confidence. ■
Client Director I Konsileo
specialising in professional risks with a focus on law firms. Having previously worked as a Practice Manager within a solicitors’ firm, he brings first-hand experience of legal operations, compliance and risk management, supporting firms with both insurance placement and a practical, strategic approach to risk. Konsileo is a Chartered insurance broker operating a client-first, advisory-led model, supporting law firms across professional indemnity, cyber, management liability and wider business risks, as well as client-related protections, with access to a broad insurer panel and specialist markets.
The Room Where It Happens: Power, Partnership and the Business of Inclusion
There is a difference between talking about inclusion and building it into the fabric of how business is actually done. For Julian Richard, Managing Director of extense, that distinction is everything.
“For extense, inclusion is a performance prerogative. It’s about high performance. It’s about alpha performance.”
That framing, direct, commercial and unapologetically focused on results, sits at the heart of a new initiative taking shape in the City this May. At The Ned, against the backdrop of one of London’s most recognisable business venues, a carefully curated group of black partners, in-house counsel and investment professionals will gather for what is being described not simply as an event, but as a catalyst.
Supported by the City of London Law Society and with backing initiated from within the organisation by Colin Passmore, the extense Business Development Symposium is designed to do something deceptively simple. It brings the right people into the same room and ensures something meaningful happens when they get there.
Julian’s own journey, and that of extense, is rooted firmly in the legal sector. “extense is the legal sector specialist inclusion consultancy, training provider and partner headhunting solution for law firms. We have worked with 23 major law firms over the last four years to support their inclusion objectives, and help them to acquire partner level talent.”
For Julian, inclusion is not a moral add-on or a reputational exercise. It is something far more fundamental.
“It’s about ensuring that your platform as an organisation is one where everybody has the ability to not just survive, but thrive. The ability to and contribute and participate in full should not be and is not limited by any aspect of your identity to do so.”
The language is deliberate.
It’s about leveraging the brilliance of difference and frankly, supporting the best people to contribute to the fullest to that extent.”
That emphasis on performance, on unlocking potential rather than simply addressing imbalance, runs through everything extense does. Nowhere is that clearer than in the data that first brought widespread attention to the issue. In 2022, extense published its self commissioned research, the 1% Study, which examined the representation of black lawyers at senior levels in private practice.
The findings were stark. The response was equally striking.
“That research shone a light on the lack of Black representation at senior levels in private practice, as well as outlining several evidence-based solutions to improve the status quo.”
What has happened since is significant.
“Since the launch of ‘The 1% Study’, the number of Black partners at major law firms in the UK has increased by almost 70 per cent to more than 150 Black partners now.”
It remains, as Julian acknowledges, “still a small percentage of the total number of partners at major law firms.” But the direction of travel matters.
“It’s a positive sign of progress, and one which highlights, in a short period of time, that capable talent has always existed in most firms. But whilst talent is everywhere, opportunity is not.”
Did the study make the difference?
“I think the evidence illustrates that it has,” he reflects. “Rather than shaming firms, I would say it has simply made it more difficult to ignore this reality.”
The combination of research, amplification and collaboration created momentum across the profession. The result has been tangible change.
“We have seen an uplift in record numbers of internal promotions to partnership. These individuals were always capable and have since fared incredibly well as partners.”
Beyond the pipeline and into partnership. If recent years have shown progress at the point of promotion, Julian is clear that the real challenge lies beyond it.
“What can be overlooked,” he explains, “is that whilst a junior lawyer might spend 10 to 12 years in a firm as a trainee and an associate, a partner might spend up to three times that amount of tenure in the firm.”
That time is also becoming more complex.
“We are seeing three-tier partnerships more than ever and the threshold to exit that first rung, non-equity partnership, is becoming harder. We are seeing underrepresented talent finding it more challenging than their counterparts in the dominant group to achieve full equity.”
“It’s about ensuring that your platform as an organisation is one where everybody has the ability to not just survive, but thrive.
Making partner is not the end of the story. In many ways, it is only the beginning.
“More support needs to be considered for partner-level talent because being promoted to the partnership is not an end point. This stage is the gateway to the next. It is often the last three quarters of the race.”
This thinking underpins the next phase of extense’s work. The focus is shifting from pipeline to influence, from access to opportunity and from representation to revenue.
The symposium and the shift to action
The extense Business Development Symposium is the most tangible expression of that shift.
“At its core,” Julian explains, “one of the things we are attempting to do is to reduce the imperfect knowledge of who the leading Black partners are for those who instruct legal services and influence legal spend.”
The issue is not simply one of bias but of visibility.
“There are an increasing number of Black lawyers occupying in-house positions, many of whom started their careers in private practice, who are now budget holders or key influencers of legal spend. These individuals are more mindful and are motivated to diversify that spend, but they do not know who all the leading Black partners are.”
The symposium is designed to change that.
“Awareness is not just a list of names. It is bringing people together, facilitating structured networking and ensuring that the right people are having conversations with the right people.”
It is, in his words, matchmaking in practice.
The ambition is clear. Relationships form intentionally and lead to tangible business outcomes.
“Whilst it is very pleasant to convene as an affinity group, it is equally critical to collaborate and transact.”
For Patrick McCann, Chief Executive of the City of London Law Society, the decision to support the symposium aligns closely with the organisation’s evolving strategy.
“The emerging strategy of CLLS is to elevate and amplify the work of City Law," he says. “And we see this as an opportunity to do both.”
What struck him immediately was the simplicity and originality of the idea.
“It was one of those ideas where you just think, why has this not been done before? It is brilliant.”
He sees the initiative as speaking directly to several strands of the organisation’s strategic focus.
“We are keen to work with significant stakeholders who are moving things forward and to make sure that the legal sector has a strong impact. This gets down to the bottom line. It gets down to people’s career paths. It gets down to business actually happening.”
There is also a reputational dimension.
“We want to be seen as a modern, credible and economically essential force. And the business that will be done as a result of this event will reinforce that.”
At the same time, it speaks to a broader sense of responsibility.
“I think instructions are going to happen as a result of this event. People will build their business development capabilities. Networks will be established. More work and referrals will follow.”
There is also a strategic advantage in being involved early.
“You would want to be at the ground floor of something like this. There is a community out there that is currently under utilised. There is real growth potential within that.”
Collaboration, he adds, is essential.
“We have done it with access to justice, with social mobility, with the LGBT community. Sometimes you need to collaborate across firms to make significant shifts in the sector. This is one of those moments.”
Patrick is unequivocal in his encouragement to firms to take part.
“I would want to be in the room where it happens. It would be a strange event to miss if you had the opportunity to attend.”
The choice of venue is also deliberate.
“The Ned is where business starts, happens, is concluded or is celebrated. And visually, it will be a powerful moment to see members of an underrepresented community gathered in strength.”
That visibility matters.
“There is real power in seeing the scale of your potential.”
For Julian, success will not be measured by attendance alone, but by what follows.
“What I most look forward to are the narratives that stem from the event. Future stories of instructions, improved business development skills, referrals and business opportunities.”
He is particularly focused on removing hesitation.
“Knowing who can I refer work to? Who I can recommend, without nervousness around the fact that the person is also Black?” “Those are the barriers we want to break down.”
“When I interviewed many of these Black partners, many spoke of having to dim their light, mute their identity and or assimilate, I look forward to supporting and creating an environment where the opposite is encouraged. Lean into your points of difference. Recognise its value and
Patrick shares that longer view.
“In the short term, I would hope to see introductions and instructions coming out of this. But in two or three years, I would love to see stories of people being promoted to partnership on the basis of the deal flow and opportunities that began in rooms like this.”
He is confident in the model.
“If you create the right environment, good things happen. We see it time and again.”
Julian is clear that this is only the beginning.
“Black representation remains worryingly low at the partnership level. And with the increasing complexity of partnership structures, there are new challenges to be aware of.”
extense, he adds, will continue to push for change.
“extense will continue to agitate and provoke positive action to accelerate progression of underrepresented talent to senior levels. We continue to encourage law firms and legal industry stakeholders to take bold action.”
He is equally clear in his gratitude.
“We are very grateful to Patrick, Colin Passmore and the City of London Law Society for standing boldly with us for this endeavour.”
On May 14th, at The Ned, that boldness will take a tangible form. A room full of people. A network in motion. And perhaps, the start of something that reshapes not just who is in the room, but how business gets done once they are there. ■
NB This article was written before the event took place, It was a huge success - as photographs published here show.
What experienced serious injury lawyers are really looking for from a modern practice
What experienced serious injury lawyers are really looking for from a modern practice
Richard Harwood, Director of Serious Injury at Minster Law, reflects on what enables lawyers to do their best work and why the structure around serious injury practice matters more than ever.
Richard Harwood, Director of Serious Injury at Minster Law, reflects on what enables lawyers to do their best work and why the structure around serious injury practice matters more than ever.
After more than 30 years working exclusively for claimants in personal injury, Richard Harwood has a clear view on what separates a strong serious injury practice from an average one. Technical ability matters, of course, but so do the conditions in which lawyers are asked to apply it. Here, he shares his perspective on what experienced serious injury lawyers increasingly want from a role, and why Minster Law has built its team the way it has.
After more than 30 years working exclusively for claimants in personal injury, Richard Harwood has a clear view on what separates a strong serious injury practice from an average one. Technical ability matters, of course, but so do the conditions in which lawyers are asked to apply it. Here, he shares his perspective on what experienced serious injury lawyers increasingly want from a role, and why Minster Law has built its team the way it has.
Q What do experienced serious injury lawyers increasingly look for from a modern practice?
Q What do experienced serious injury lawyers increasingly look for from a modern practice?
A For most experienced serious injury lawyers, it goes well beyond title or salary. They are usually looking at the quality of the work, the level of trust placed in them, the support around them, and whether the environment genuinely allows them to do the job properly.
A For most experienced serious injury lawyers, it goes well beyond title or salary. They are usually looking at the quality of the work, the level of trust placed in them, the support around them, and whether the environment genuinely allows them to do the job properly.
Serious injury work is demanding in a different way to many other areas of practice. It is not simply about progressing a file efficiently. You are often dealing with life-changing injuries, complex futures, family impact, rehabilitation, settlement structure and long-term client needs. Good lawyers want to know they are somewhere that understands that and is set up accordingly.
Serious injury work is demanding in a different way to many other areas of practice. It is not simply about progressing a file efficiently. You are often dealing with life-changing injuries, complex futures, family impact, rehabilitation, settlement structure and long-term client needs. Good lawyers want to know they are somewhere that understands that and is set up accordingly.
Q What makes serious injury work easier or harder to do well?
Q What makes serious injury work easier or harder to do well?
A A lot comes down to the operating environment. The quality of the lawyer clearly matters, but the structure around that lawyer matters too.
A A lot comes down to the operating environment. The quality of the lawyer clearly matters, but the structure around that lawyer matters too.
If case numbers are too high, if billing pressures drive the wrong behaviours, or if lawyers are weighed down with administration, it becomes much harder to give complex cases the time and thought they deserve. On the other hand, if lawyers have access to the right work, manageable caseloads, good technical support and the freedom to exercise judgement properly, the quality of the work improves quite naturally.
If case numbers are too high, if billing pressures drive the wrong behaviours, or if lawyers are weighed down with administration, it becomes much harder to give complex cases the time and thought they deserve. On the other hand, if lawyers have access to the right work, manageable caseloads, good technical support and the freedom to exercise judgement properly, the quality of the work improves quite naturally.
That is especially true in serious injury, where the right outcome often depends on patience, judgement and a willingness to pursue the right course rather than the quickest one.
That is especially true in serious injury, where the right outcome often depends on patience, judgement and a willingness to pursue the right course rather than the quickest one.
Q How is Minster Law’s approach different?
Q How is Minster Law’s approach different?
A One of the biggest differences is the nature of the work itself. Because of Minster Law’s long-standing relationships in the motor sector, our Serious Injury team handles a substantial volume of complex, high-value cases, with a breadth of injury types that gives lawyers real depth of exposure. That includes everything from serious orthopaedic injuries to amputations, brain injury, chronic pain and spinal cord work.
A One of the biggest differences is the nature of the work itself. Because of Minster Law’s long-standing relationships in the motor sector, our Serious Injury team handles a substantial volume of complex, high-value cases, with a breadth of injury types that gives lawyers real depth of exposure. That includes everything from serious orthopaedic injuries to amputations, brain injury, chronic pain and spinal cord work.
We have also structured the team so that lawyers can build their expertise progressively. There are clear value bands, and within that there is scope to develop real specialist depth. For some lawyers, that means broad serious injury experience. For others, it can mean purely specialising in one area of injury type.
We have also structured the team so that lawyers can build their expertise progressively. There are clear value bands, and within that there is scope to develop real specialist depth. For some lawyers, that means broad serious injury experience. For others, it can mean purely specialising in one area of injury type.
That combination of scale, complexity and specialist progression is quite powerful for lawyers who want to keep developing.
That combination of scale, complexity and specialist progression is quite powerful for lawyers who want to keep developing.
Q You mention the environment around the lawyer. What does that look like in practice at Minster Law?
Q You mention the environment around the lawyer. What does that look like in practice at Minster Law?
A It means giving people the space and support to focus on the case properly.
A It means giving people the space and support to focus on the case properly.
Our lawyers work in small teams and handle relatively limited numbers of cases, which gives them more time to explore the legal, practical and rehabilitative issues that really matter. It also means they can build stronger relationships with clients and families, which is a very important part of serious injury practice.
Our lawyers work in small teams and handle relatively limited numbers of cases, which gives them more time to explore the legal, practical and rehabilitative issues that really matter. It also means they can build stronger relationships with clients and families, which is a very important part of serious injury practice.
We also remove billing targets for our Serious Injury case handlers. That is a deliberate part of our model. It allows lawyers to focus on what is right for the client, rather than what is needed to satisfy an internal target.
We also remove billing targets for our Serious Injury case handlers. That is a deliberate part of our model. It allows lawyers to focus on what is right for the client, rather than what is needed to satisfy an internal target.
Alongside that, the wider support structure is important. Operational managers and the wider team provide support across all aspect of administrative work, allowing our lawyers to spend more their time on legal strategy, client care and achieving the right outcome.
Alongside that, the wider support structure is important. Operational managers and the wider team provide support across all aspect of administrative work, allowing our lawyers to spend more their time on legal strategy, client care and achieving the right outcome.
Q Why does that matter so much in serious injury?
Q Why does that matter so much in serious injury?
A Because the consequences of getting it right or wrong are significant.
A Because the consequences of getting it right or wrong are significant.
In serious injury cases, decisions around rehabilitation, expert evidence, interim support, future needs and settlement structure can have a very long tail. These are not cases that should be rushed or approached too mechanically. Lawyers need time to think, challenge, plan and sometimes hold their nerve.
In serious injury cases, decisions around rehabilitation, expert evidence, interim support, future needs and settlement structure can have a very long tail. These are not cases that should be rushed or approached too mechanically. Lawyers need time to think, challenge, plan and sometimes hold their nerve.
They also need the confidence to pursue the right outcome for the client, whether that means pushing harder on rehabilitation, thinking carefully about PPOs or provisional damages, or taking a firmer position on indemnity or liability issues where necessary. A good serious injury model should support that kind of judgement, not crowd it out.
They also need the confidence to pursue the right outcome for the client, whether that means pushing harder on rehabilitation, thinking carefully about PPOs or provisional damages, or taking a firmer position on indemnity or liability issues where necessary. A good serious injury model should support that kind of judgement, not crowd it out.
Q How important is shared expertise in a serious injury team?
Q How important is shared expertise in a serious injury team?
A It is hugely important. No matter how experienced you are, serious injury work is better when expertise is shared rather than siloed. At Minster Law, our lawyers work closely with one another and with senior specialists across the department. Technical discussion is part of the culture. More complex and higher-value cases benefit from close peer input and oversight, and lawyers are encouraged to bring their own style and judgement while also learning from colleagues around them.
A It is hugely important. No matter how experienced you are, serious injury work is better when expertise is shared rather than siloed. At Minster Law, our lawyers work closely with one another and with senior specialists across the department. Technical discussion is part of the culture. More complex and higher-value cases benefit from close peer input and oversight, and lawyers are encouraged to bring their own style and judgement while also learning from colleagues around them.
That makes the environment more supportive, but it also improves standards. Good serious injury work is rarely about one individual operating in isolation. It is about strong individual capability sitting inside a team that shares knowledge, experience and ideas well.
That makes the environment more supportive, but it also improves standards. Good serious injury work is rarely about one individual operating in isolation. It is about strong individual capability sitting inside a team that shares knowledge, experience and ideas well.
Q What kind of lawyer tends to thrive in an environment like Minster Law?
Q What kind of lawyer tends to thrive in an environment like Minster Law?
A Usually someone who is ambitious about the quality of their work rather than simply their next title.
A Usually someone who is ambitious about the quality of their work rather than simply their next title.
The lawyers who tend to thrive here are people who want to keep deepening their expertise, who care about getting the detail right, and who value being trusted to think for themselves. They tend to enjoy complex work, but they also understand the human side of serious injury and the importance of building confidence with clients and families.
The lawyers who tend to thrive here are people who want to keep deepening their expertise, who care about getting the detail right, and who value being trusted to think for themselves. They tend to enjoy complex work, but they also understand the human side of serious injury and the importance of building confidence with clients and families.
For the right person, that is what makes serious injury practice rewarding. You are not just managing a case. You are helping shape the client’s recovery, security and future in a meaningful way.
For the right person, that is what makes serious injury practice rewarding. You are not just managing a case. You are helping shape the client’s recovery, security and future in a meaningful way.
Q What makes a serious injury team somewhere good lawyers want to stay?
Q What makes a serious injury team somewhere good lawyers want to stay?
A In my view, it is when lawyers feel they can do their best work there.
A In my view, it is when lawyers feel they can do their best work there.
That usually comes down to a combination of factors: the right work, the right support, the right level of autonomy, and a culture where expertise is respected and shared. If those things are in place, people tend to stay and develop because they can see a long-term future for themselves.
That usually comes down to a combination of factors: the right work, the right support, the right level of autonomy, and a culture where expertise is respected and shared. If those things are in place, people tend to stay and develop because they can see a long-term future for themselves.
That is what we have worked hard to build at Minster Law. We want to create an environment where experienced serious injury lawyers can handle complex, life-changing cases with the care, judgement and support those cases deserve. For lawyers looking for that kind of practice, that is often what stands out.
That is what we have worked hard to build at Minster Law. We want to create an environment where experienced serious injury lawyers can handle complex, life-changing cases with the care, judgement and support those cases deserve. For lawyers looking for that kind of practice, that is often what stands out.
MINSTER LAW IS HIRING ASSOCIATES
MINSTER LAW IS HIRING ASSOCIATES
As an
As an associate in our Serious Injury team, you will:
• Manage a caseload of complex serious injury claims from initial strategy to resolution
• Manage a caseload of complex serious injury claims from initial strategy to resolution
• Lead on liability, quantum, rehabilitation, interim payment and settlement strategy
• Lead on liability, quantum, rehabilitation, interim payment and settlement strategy
• Work closely with clients, families, counsel, medical experts and other specialists
• Work closely with clients, families, counsel, medical experts and other specialists
• Provide direction, oversight and mentoring to junior colleagues
• Provide direction, oversight and mentoring to junior colleagues
• Contribute to high standards of technical quality, collaboration and client service
• Contribute to high standards of technical quality, collaboration and client service
REMOTE | LONDON | WAKEFIELD
CONNECTING THE CITY’S LEGAL VOICE
Two months into her role as External Affairs Lead at the City of London Law Society, Carly Hollingsworth is already doing what she does best: bringing people together. With a career built on relationships, influence and an instinct for where conversations need to happen, she has stepped into the heart of the City’s legal ecosystem with energy and intent. Her mission is simple but ambitious; to amplify the voice of the Society, deepen its connections with member firms, and ensure that the collective power of the City’s legal community is both understood and felt.
If there is a single thread that runs through Carly’s career, it is connection. Not the superficial kind—business cards exchanged over lukewarm coffee—but something more purposeful: the careful, deliberate weaving together of people, ideas and influence.
“I joined on the 12th of January, so just over two months now,” she says. “It’s gone quickly—really quickly.”
It’s easy to see why. The role she has stepped into is not one that lends itself to quiet observation. It demands visibility, responsiveness and, above all, engagement.
As External Affairs Lead, Carly sits at the intersection of the City of London Law Society (CLLS) and its many audiences; member firms, stakeholders, policymakers and the wider City network. It is a role that is as broad as it is strategic.
“The main focus is relationships and engagement,” she explains. “Connecting with our members and key stakeholders, refining our member offer, and making sure it’s visible, accessible and clear—and really amplifying what we’re doing.”
That word, ‘amplifying’, is central to how she sees the role. Not because the CLLS lacks influence, but because, in her view, there is an opportunity to make that influence more visible and more widely understood.
“There’s a huge amount of impactful work going on,” she says. “But not everyone always sees it. So part of my role is making that visible, making sure firms understand what’s being done on their behalf, and the value of their collective voice.”
In practice, that means translating complex policy, technical input and committee work into something tangible, something that resonates not only with those directly involved, but with firm leadership who may not always have full sight of the Society’s reach.
For Carly, the move to the CLLS was a natural evolution.
Her previous role at the Law Society, first as Strategic Relationships Manager and then as External Affairs Manager, was built on similar foundations: engagement, influence and ensuring that the voices of member firms were heard where it mattered most. Carly joined the Law Society specifically to work with the late and widely respected Stephen Denyer, a man she she credits as instrumental in shaping her understanding of the profession and one who continues to inform her work today.
“My focus has always been on connecting firms into the work of the organisation, particularly the lobbying and influencing side, making sure their voices are part of those conversations, and that they know what’s being done for them.”
It was through this work that she became deeply embedded in the City’s legal landscape. Managing relationships with key stakeholders, including the CLLS itself, the City of London Corporation and TheCityUK, she found herself increasingly drawn to the unique energy and influence of the City.
“I was already very connected into the City, networking, building relationships, working closely with firms - and I really enjoyed that aspect of the role,” she says.
The CLLS stood out, not just for its work, but for its position within the wider ecosystem.
“I had a huge amount of respect for the organisation,the clout it has, the people it works with, the calibre of its Board. It just felt like the right next step.”
Ask Carly to describe the CLLS—its personality rather than its function—and she pauses briefly before answering.
“It’s a powerhouse,” she says. “A concentration of expertise, technical leadership and influence.”
At its core is the idea of collective strength: leading City firms coming together to shape the legal and regulatory landscape.
“It has the ability to shape not just the City ecosystem, but the wider legal sector—nationally and globally in many respects,” she explains. “That’s what makes it so impactful.”
For Carly, being part of that system is both motivating and humbling.
“I feel very privileged to be here,” she adds. “It’s quite a unique environment.”
If the CLLS is already influential, Carly’s goal is to ensure that its impact is fully recognised, both internally and externally.
Her priorities are clear: stronger connections with member firms, deeper collaboration across the City, and a sharper articulation of the Society’s value.
“It’s about connecting the Society more closely with its members and the wider ecosystem,” she says. “Encouraging more collaboration, more awareness and more engagement.”
Central to that is visibility.
“A lot of the work is incredibly impactful, but we need to make sure it’s seen,” she explains. “That firms understand the role they play in that collective and how that collective influence ensures we are heard by government and regulators.”
That work begins with listening.
“We’ve been spending a lot of time meeting members, speaking to senior leadership, understanding their businesses,” she says. “That’s critical because it helps us understand where we can add value and how we can support them.”
It is an approach grounded in curiosity and responsiveness, qualities that have defined her career to date.
Alongside this programme of engagement, Carly is also focused on the Society’s major strategic initiatives.
“The big projects are really exciting,” she says. “The ethics taskforce, the City Conference - those are areas where we can really make an impact.”
These initiatives bring together the collective expertise of member firms to address complex issues and influence the direction of the profession.
“They’re opportunities not just to respond to change, but to shape it,” she says.
And it is precisely this ability to convene, to influence, to lead that makes the CLLS such a powerful force within the City.
Carly’s career path may not have been linear, but it has been remarkably consistent in one respect: a focus on people.
With a background in business development and marketing, she has spent her career in roles centred on relationships, growth and engagement across a variety of sectors.
“I just really enjoyed the sector, I developed a genuine interest in how the legal system works and the profession as a whole.”
Her introduction to the legal world came via a legal recruitment agency.
“I just really enjoyed the sector,” she says. “I developed a genuine interest in how the legal system works and the profession as a whole.”
From there, a move to the Law Society followed through what she describes as “natural networking”a connection that opened the door to a decade in legal sector engagement.
Before all that, however, came a rather different chapter: the ski industry.
“I learned to ski in my early 30s and completely fell in love with it,” she says. “So I carved out a career in that space for a while.”
Even there, the pattern is clear. Carly gravitated towards high-end clients and professional operators, managing relationships in a demanding, fast-paced environment.
“It’s very different on the surface,” she admits. “But there’s a common theme—working with people who have high expectations and delivering in a highpressure setting.”
Carly brings a clear sense of energy to her role,something she is careful to sustain outside of work.
“I’m very active, I weight train regularly,” she says. “It’s important to stay strong and healthy, especially in a role like this where you’re constantly on the go.”
It is both practical and personal: a way to maintain resilience in a high-energy environment and a vital outlet beyond the demands of the City.
At home, life takes on a different rhythm. Based in the Hertfordshire countryside, weekends are deliberately low-key.
“I’m out walking the dogs, spending time with my family,” she says. “I’ve got two children and a stepson, so that keeps me busy.”
It is a contrast she clearly values.
“I get a lot of social interaction through work,” she reflects. “So at the weekend, I’m quite happy to keep things simple; fresh air, home comforts, just switching off.”
So what does success look like?
For Carly, it is not defined by a single initiative, but by a broader shift: a more connected, more visible and more influential Society.
“I want to help drive the strategy forward and enhance the impact of the work we’re doing,” she says. “To make sure we’re representing our members in the best possible way.”
There is also a personal dimension, one rooted in the kind of environment she thrives in.
“I enjoy being somewhere agile, where you can shape things and make a difference,” she says. “And that’s exactly what this role offers.”
Just two months in, the pace is already set. Relationships are being built, conversations are underway and the work of amplification has begun.
If Carly has her way, the result will be a City of London Law Society that is not only influential but unmistakably visible in that influence.
A powerhouse, certainly. But one that speaks clearly, confidently and collectively for the City’s legal community. ■
Mansion House Banquet 2026
On10 March, members of the profession gathered at Mansion House for the annual Banquet of the City of London Solicitors’ Company, bringing together distinguished guests and representatives from across the City. The evening combined both long standing tradition with a clear sense of the profession’s continued evolvement.
The historic setting of Mansion House provided a fitting backdrop for an evening that combined formal tradition with a strong sense of connection across the profession. It also highlighted the Company’s role in supporting the rule of law, maintaining profes-sional standards, and its broader contribution within the City. As observed by Simon Davis, Senior Warden, “more than ever… it is so important for human beings to spend time together in each other’s physical company… and supporting each other. This company, that fellowship is what our Company is all about.”
Virginia Cannon, Master of the Company, opened the evening with a welcoming ad-dress. She spoke about the importance of maintaining strong professional and civic connections, alongside the Company’s charitable work and its role within the profes-sion.
Those in attendance included the first “Lady Mayor”, Sheriffs and members of the judi-ciary, reflecting the longstanding relationship between the legal profession and the in-stitutions at the centre of the City. The presentation of the 71st London Irish Rifles Ca-det of the Year also showed that the Company’s focus extends beyond the profession itself, with an emphasis on service, leadership and public responsibility.
The speeches throughout the evening provided an opportunity to consider the position of the City and the profession more broadly. Simon Davis, Senior
Warden, referred to the “golden thread” running through the evening, noting that “the clue to the golden thread… lies in our name.” This focused on the City of London’s role as a global finan-cial centre, and the importance of the rule of law in sustaining that position.
What stood out was the breadth of those in attendance. Alongside established practi-tioners were solicitor apprentices, trainees and junior lawyers, representing the pro-fession at different stages. In a setting so closely associated with tradition, this served as a clear indication of how the profession is changing.
As access to the legal profession continues to widen, representation within these spaces becomes increasingly important. It is not simply a question of entry into the pro-fession, but of inclusion within it. Institutions such as the Company have an important role in ensuring that early career lawyers are able to engage with its networks, tradi-tions and leadership.
The evening also served as a reminder that the Company is not solely defined by its history or ceremonial function. It remains an active professional community, continuing to engage with the needs of the modern profession while maintaining its established values.
The 2026 Banquet was therefore more than a formal occasion. It provided an oppor-tunity to bring together different parts of the profession, to reflect on its role within the City, and to recognise its continued development.
As ever, the success of the evening reflected the work undertaken behind the scenes and the continued strength of the Company at the centre of the City’s legal community.
The Ceremony Of The Keys
Thegloom of a February evening had settled over the City of London when fifty Company members and guests gathered in a pub just off Tower Green. The drizzle didn’t dampen any spirits and after a pie and pint (or similar, according to taste) and an hour of so of convivial conversation, we headed off crocodile fashion for the main event: a private evening tour of the Tower of London.
As everyone knows, the ceremonial guard at the Tower is formed by the Yeoman Warders (full title, the Yeomen Warders of His Majesty's Royal Palace and Fortress the Tower of London, and Members of the Sovereign's Body Guard of the Yeoman Guard Extraordinary, popularly known as the Beefeaters). Having securely checked-in at the gate, we were led around the south boundary wall of the Tower complex to meet our very own Beefeater host for the evening, Yeoman Warden 420 aka Garry McCormick. After a briefing in the shadow of Tower Bridge, our group was admitted to the Tower, each of us hoping that we would be let out again a couple of hours later! Treated to tales of famous residents and grizzly executions, horror stories that might make your blood curdle and many other historical titbits as we walked around the various buildings that make up the Tower complex (it's not just that big square one that we can easily see), questions were asked of our Beefeater
and were answered with charm and knowledge – I'm sure that even the most trivia obsessed amongst us learned something that night!
As the tour progressed the sense of excitement grew and we prepared for the highlight of the evening. After another briefing from our Beefeater, it was time to witness (and participate in) the famous Ceremony of the Keys. Although it's called a ceremony, this is a practical and purposeful ritual, the locking of the Tower for the evening; while the practical necessity of locking the Tower gates has diminished in the modern era, the symbolic power of the ceremony remains strong. It represents continuity, loyalty to the Crown, and the enduring nature of British institutions. The unbroken performance of the ritual is a powerful reminder of how history, tradition, and ceremony remain woven into daily life in the United Kingdom. Having continued uninterrupted every evening for over seven hundred years, we were reminded several times that photography and filming are not permitted so as to retain the special intimate nature of this tradition.
Placed on the corner under the Bloody Tower, with the Master and her consort in prime position, we waited with baited breath for the sound of boots of cobblestones and a glimpse of light from the candle lantern carried along with the keys by the Chief Yeoman Warder in his red watchcoat and Tudor
adorned with red, white and blue decoration. We heard the sound, we saw the light but there was no Chief, the lantern and keys carried instead by the watchman. A shame to miss the colour of the Chief Yeoman Warder's garb but our guide stepped into the breach, taking on the role usually carried out by the watchman, so seamlessly that it was hardly noticed that things were not quite as they would normally be! Perhaps we'll need to go back again!
After being strongly challenged by the sentry posted right in front of us, the keys were allowed to pass and we followed them round the corner to the Broadwalk Steps where the full Tower guard was waiting. With the White Tower looming above us, the guard were ordered to present arms, the watchman proclaimed: "God preserve King Charles" and we all answered lustfully: "Amen". With the sounding of the Last Post as the drizzle fell softly on our heads, the ceremony ended; it was an emotional moment this author will not forget for a long time.
Although the gates were locked, after a couple more stories from Garry we were let out a side door and free to return to the world outside one of the world's most famous and recognisable building complexes –His Majesty's Royal Palace and Fortress the Tower of London!
Lee McLernon.
bonnet
Private
equity overtakes merger as UK law firms' preferred route to growth, new research reveals
Three-quarters of firms seeking investment now favour private equity as sector faces "once-in-a-generation" transformation according to survey of UK law firm leaders
Private equity has overtaken merger and partnership as the preferred growth strategy among UK law firms seeking investment, according to new research from leading legal technology provider Dye & Durham. According to the results: Among firms seeking investment, 75% now favour private equity, while only 52% cite the traditional route of merger or partnership. The finding is among several key insights from the extensive research that appear to signal a once-ina-generation shift in firms' attitudes to investment, technology, and growth.
The data suggests the market shift may be more advanced than many in the profession realise. While previous research has tracked private equity deal volumes and the extent to which firms have been approached by investors, this is believed to be among the first studies to measure law firms' own investment preferences, finding a marked shift toward private equity and away from the traditional merger or partnership route.
Speaking about the release of the report today, Colin Bohanna, Managing Director of Dye & Durham UK, said: "This research confirms what many in the profession are increasingly alert to, and which many more have yet to realise: there is a monumental shift taking place in the UK legal market, and it will affect every part of the profession.
"While the traditional merger and partnership model is in no danger of going away, there is a remarkable transformation taking place in UK law, one that is changing how law firm leaders operate and which will have a growing influence in years to come. We
hope this research will be a useful tool to the industry in navigating a way forward.”
Other key findings of the research include:
• 86% of legal professionals polled in a live survey agreed that the business model of UK law firms has evolved more in the past 10 years than in the previous 20
• 88% of senior leaders agreed their technology platform signals their firm's maturity to external investors
• 80% said financial performance expectations are higher today than five years ago
• 45% cited talent recruitment and retention as the single biggest barrier to scaling
The report draws on an independent survey of 200 senior leaders at mid-sized and large UK law firms, conducted by Arlington Research, with 80% of respondents from firms with 50 or more fee earners. Dye & Durham supplemented this with a live poll at the British Legal Technology Forum and an in-depth interview with Adrian Jaggard, CEO of Taylor Rose and AIIC Group.
Market analysis
The complete whitepaper of the research findings
– The Future of UK Law Firms 2026: Changing Leadership, Capital, and Operating Models – also draws attention to what is likely driving these changing attitudes, specifically a "trifecta" of forces driving the shift: the growth of the consultant model (now over 4,000 practitioners)1, the rise of alternative business structures (from 8% of SRA-regulated firms in 2017 to 13% by 2022/2023)2, and an unprecedented influx of private equity (£1.2bn invested over five years,
with a record £534m in 2024 alone)3 with 70% of mid-sized UK law firms approached by private equity investors in 2025.4 Together, the paper argues, these forces are reshaping not just how firms are financed, but how they operate and compete.
The full report can be found at: dyedurham.co.uk/ resources/ebooks-reports/
About the research
The Future of UK Law Firms 2026: Changing Leadership, Capital, and Operating Models is based on:
• An independent survey of 200 senior leaders and technology decision-makers at mid-sized and large UK law firms, conducted by Arlington Research between 20 January and 4 February 2026. Respondents included equity partners, salaried partners, C-suite executives, practice managers, and consultant lawyers. 80% were from firms with 50 or more fee earners.
• A live poll of 51 attendees at the British Legal Technology Forum (BLTF) 2026, one of Europe's largest legal technology conferences.
• An in-depth interview with Adrian Jaggard, co-founder and CEO of AIIC Group and Taylor Rose, one of the UK's largest consumer-facing law firms.
www.dyedurham.com ■
Tradition reimagined: the CLSC looks to the future
There is something quietly symbolic in the idea of a Livery Company rediscovering the apprentice. For centuries, these institutions existed precisely to train, to mentor and to usher new entrants into a profession. Over time, however, that function receded, replaced by something more focused on the community of qualified, more senior professionals. Membership of the City of London Solicitors’ Company became, in effect, a mark of arrival rather than a point of entry, a recognition of having made it, rather than a means of getting there.
That has changed.
The Company has been exploring ways to extend its reach beyond the traditional pool of qualified solicitors, opening the door to those at the very start of their legal careers. Trainee solicitors, solicitor apprentices, and paralegals seeking training contracts, are being welcomed into the Company. Not yet as full members, but through emerging forms of engagement and inclusion that signal a shift in tone as much as in policy.
By acknowledging Solicitors in Training (as they are collectively known within the Company) as a vital part of its community and with their own special status with the CLSC, rather than as future candidates waiting in the wings, the Company is beginning to reframe what the Livery means, and when it begins.
This evolution sits against a broader rethinking of how the legal profession attracts and develops talent. The rise of solicitor apprenticeships and the diversification of qualification routes have challenged long standing assumptions about entry into the law.
It is also, perhaps, a return to first principles. Livery Companies were founded on apprenticeship, on the idea that learning, belonging and
professional identity begin together. The Company’s own values are focused on fellowship, charity, education, social engagement and upholding the Rule of Law. In reaching out to a new generation and creating the new special affiliation of Solicitor in Training, the Company is not so much breaking with tradition as in fact reembracing it.
What that looks like in practice is best understood not in policy terms, but through the experiences of those now stepping through the door for the first time.
For Neha Jannath, a paralegal at CM Murray LLP, the route into both the law and the Company reflects a blend of determination and opportunity. She had long been certain of her path.
“I was probably about 13 when I decided I wanted to study law,” she recalls.
That early clarity carried her through her law degree at the University of Nottingham and directly into her role as a paralegal; it has given her the opportunity to consider whether the legal profession is a place where she feels she could belong. Her introduction to the Company
CITY OF LONDON SOLICITORS’
came soon after, encouraged by her managing partner, Clare Murray. Clare is a Liveryman who, inspired by Past Masters Sarah de Gay and Edmund Parker and Liveryman Joanna Hughes MBE, and at an early stage of her own career, by Past Master Ronnie Fox, has actively supported junior engagement. What began as attending events quickly evolved into something more involved for Neha, and which has directly supported her professional development within the legal profession. Neha became immersed in the Company’s communications work (rising recently to the position of deputy chair of the communications committee) and strikingly, Neha went on to chair a session in one of its most visible initiatives, the Lucky Girls series (focused on enhancing the careers of women in the solicitors profession), within little more than a year of first attending.
The speed of that progression says something about both her own energy and the space the Company is creating for younger voices. It also speaks to the inclusive culture she has experienced since joining. “I thought I would find it really uncomfortable,” she says of walking into rooms often filled with far more senior practitioners, though also with many younger colleagues too. “However I have found that the Company has a genuinely open and welcoming atmosphere where I have found it easy to speak to people and where I feel like I belong.”
That sense of belonging is not accidental. It reflects a deliberate effort within the Company to broaden participation and inclusion, particularly through initiatives that create entry points for those who might otherwise feel excluded. For Neha, networks and events such as Lucky Girls have been central, offering both peer support and visibility within a traditionally formal environment.
What is striking is that this inclusion does not come at the expense of tradition. “It does not deviate from the fact that it is still a traditional Livery Company,” she says. “It is still pivotal to the City and to the industry. But you feel like you can offer something of value to it from within and especially so through the new Company affiliation of Solicitor in Training.” The combination of heritage and openness is, in many ways, precisely what the Company is now striving to achieve.
If Neha’s experience reflects rapid immersion, Sienna Horrigan represents the very earliest stage of engagement. A first-year solicitor apprentice at Stephenson Harwood LLP, she is part of a generation entering the profession through routes that barely existed a decade ago.
Her awareness of the Company came through a City Century event, where she first heard about the extension of membership to more junior lawyers. The appeal was immediate.
“Especially being that much younger and more junior, it is a really great opportunity to get out, meet new people and learn more about the industry.”
Sienna has only recently joined and is yet to attend her first formal event, but the significance lies in her instinct to engage early. Where previous generations might have viewed livery companies as distant, even inaccessible, she sees them as part of the landscape she is actively navigating.
Her own route into law was not predetermined. Initially drawn to architecture and interior design, she reconsidered her options while weighing the practicalities of university and long-term career ambitions. Law, and particularly corporate practice, offered a better alignment with her interests. “I am quite business focused,” she explains. “It is about looking at the commercial world from a broader perspective, and I find that really fascinating.”
“Especially being that much younger and more junior, it is a really great opportunity to get out, meet new people and learn more about the industry.”
That mindset helps explain the attraction of the Company. For Sienna, it is less about tradition in the abstract and more about exposure, learning and connection. “It is a bit of a risk, being so new and being thrown into the City,” she says. “So having the opportunity to meet inspirational people and understand the industry as much as I can at this early stage will be really beneficial.”
Her perspective captures something important about the Company’s evolving role. It is not simply opening its doors, but doing so at a point when those doors can shape careers rather than merely reflect them.
For Tazmeen Choudhury, a second year solicitor apprentice at Ashurst LLP, the decision to pursue an apprenticeship route was both practical and instinctive, shaped by a desire to begin her career as early as possible and by a recognition that the traditional university pathway was not the only way into the profession.
“I was still looking at university,” she recalls of her school years, “but when I came across solicitor apprenticeships, it just seemed to tick every box.”
What began as a tentative exploration quickly became a clear preference. The application process itself proved decisive.
“It was the level of maturity expected, and the way I was spoken to in interviews. It felt like I was being treated as an equal. I realised that was an environment where I could really thrive.”
For Tazmeen, the appeal was not only professional but personal. Coming from a background without established connections to the legal world, the opportunity to earn, learn and build a career simultaneously carried particular weight. The absence of student debt and the ability to support her family were important considerations, but so too was the chance to gain immediate, meaningful experience alongside established practitioners.
“If this is where I want to end up,” she reflects, “why not start now?”
Her introduction to the Company came, fittingly, through an informal route. A post on LinkedIn led her to one of the Company’s more light hearted traditions, a fun sporting event, the Coopers Cask Race, where she joined with fellow apprentices to take part.
“We did not do very well,” she laughs, “but it was such a good experience.”
What mattered more was what followed. Conversations with existing members challenged her assumptions about livery life as something closed or exclusively senior.
“It did seem quite traditional. But everyone was so welcoming, and really keen to get younger people involved.”
That openness proved decisive when the associate category was introduced. For Tazmeen, the Company offered something she had not previously had access to: a network.
“Coming into the City with no connections whatsoever, it gives you a place to start building those relationships. It is a community you can rely on, with people you can go to for advice.”
The traditions of the Company also provide an appeal. Participating in ceremonies such as the Loving Cup, she found herself unexpectedly drawn into the history behind them.
“At first it felt quite strange,” she admits, “but once you understand it, it makes you feel part of something.”
For someone still at an early stage in her career, that feeling of belonging is powerful. It offers not only connection, but continuity, a sense that even the newest entrants to the profession have a place within its oldest institutions.
Adam Webb’s journey sits at yet another point on the spectrum. A newly qualified solicitor at Keystone Law, he comes to the Company having already navigated a non-traditional path into the profession.
After studying International Relations and Politics, and facing initial setbacks in securing a training contract, he took what he describes as a leap of faith. Leaving a role in recruitment, he returned to study, completed his law conversion and went on to achieve the highest overall mark in the UK for the Master of Arts in Law at the University of Law, of which SQE 1 was an element. He then went on to pass both Solicitors Qualifying Exams in the first quintile. Within a remarkably short period, he moved from uncertainty to qualification.
His interest in the Company predates his legal career. Drawn to the history of the City and its institutions, he was already familiar with the traditions of Livery life. The opportunity to become involved, initially through the new Solicitor in Training affiliation within the Company, was therefore particularly appealing.
“I have always been interested in the history of the City of London and the livery companies,” he says. “This felt like a chance to get involved with that and to meet professionals across different companies.”
His early experiences have reinforced that impression. From attending the United Guilds Service at St Paul’s Cathedral to meeting members of other Livery Companies at formal events, he has found himself exposed to networks and opportunities that would otherwise have been out of reach.
“It is an opportunity I never would have had,” he reflects.
, Adam admits to some initial apprehension. He had expected something more insular, perhaps less reflective of the diversity of the modern profession. The reality, he says, was different.
“I was pleasantly surprised. It is clear they are making an effort to make it more accessible and more representative.”
That effort matters, particularly for those entering the profession through newer routes. Adam is a strong advocate for apprenticeships and alternative pathways, viewing them as essential to widening access.
Taken together, these experiences offer a glimpse of a quiet but meaningful transformation. The City of London Solicitors’ Company remains, at its core, a body rooted in history, ceremony, strong values and professional distinction. None of that is being set aside.
What is changing is the point at which individuals are invited to become part of that story.
For new entrants to the profession, the impact is immediate. They gain access to networks, mentorship and perspectives that can shape their development at a formative stage. They are able to see the profession not only as it is practised, but as it is lived, across generations and across the wider civic fabric of the City.
For the Company, the benefits are equally significant. By engaging with those at the beginning of their careers, it ensures that its traditions and heritage remain connected to the realities of modern practice. It brings fresh perspectives into a historically closed space and, in doing so, strengthens its own relevance and helps create the next generation of leaders of the Company and the wider legal profession. The apprentice, once central to the identity of livery companies, is returning in a new form.
In that sense, the City of London Solicitors’ Company is not simply looking to the future. It is, in a very real way, reconnecting with its past and allowing a new generation to take their place within it. ■
“I have always been interested in the history of the City of London and the Livery Companies,” he says. “This felt like a chance to get involved with that and to meet professionals across different Companies.”
The City’s Most Charming Night Out
There are grander legal dinners in the City. There are certainly larger ones. There are probably even more lavish ones. But there may not be a more genuinely enjoyable evening in the legal calendar than the Annual Service and Supper of the City of London Solicitors' Company held this year on May 11th.
The event had all the ingredients that make the occasion such a favourite among those lucky enough to attend: history, ceremony, wonderful food, glorious music, warm company and just enough eccentricity to remind you that only in the City of London could an ordinary weekday involve processions, Tudor martyrs, ancient titles - and very good wine of course!
The day had begun earlier at Guildhall, where six new Freemen received the Freedom of the City in the North Wing. There is always something wonderfully theatrical about these ceremonies. The City remains gloriously committed to its traditions and is all the better for it.
Next, the Court gathered at Trinity House for its annual meeting to elect officers and Court Assistants for the coming year. Important
business, certainly, although by all accounts conducted with considerably more elegance than most AGMs.
I joined later for the procession from Trinity House to the Tower of London for the Annual Service at the Chapel Royal of St Peter ad Vincula. And honestly, if there is a better route between events anywhere in the legal calendar, I have yet to encounter it.
Then on into the Tower, which never quite loses its ability to make even seasoned Londoners feel slightly awestruck. What a setting it is!
The procession feels wonderfully atmospheric. At one point we passed the Merchant Seamen’s Memorial at Tower Hill, commemorating the thousands of merchant sailors who lost their lives during the world wars. In the middle of all the ceremony and splendour, it provides a rather moving pause. The memorial has a quiet dignity to it, standing there against the London skyline with the Tower nearby and the City rising behind it. For a few moments the evening feels connected not just to tradition and pageantry, but to the deeper history of service and sacrifice that runs through London itself.
Then on into the Tower, which never quite loses its ability to make even seasoned Londoners feel slightly awestruck. What a setting it is!
The Chapel Royal of St Peter ad Vincula is one of those places that feels almost suspended outside time. Tiny, intimate and astonishingly beautiful, it also happens to contain some of the most famous burials in English history. Anne Boleyn lies there. Catherine Howard too. Thomas More. Jane Grey. One enters expecting history and leaves feeling as though history has been sitting quietly beside you the entire time. I felt so privileged to be here.
And then there was the choir. Now, every event brochure promises ‘beautiful music’, but this genuinely stopped people in their tracks. At one point the singing rose up into the chapel rafters with such force and clarity that it produced actual shivers. Not
metaphorical shivers. Real ones. It was one of those rare moments where the beauty of the setting, the music and the history all came together perfectly.
After the service, the procession returned to Trinity House for supper. If you have never been inside Trinity House, it really is one of London’s hidden treasures. Part maritime institution, part stately home, part secret London fantasy, it somehow manages to feel grand and welcoming at exactly the same time.
Unlike some City occasions which can occasionally drift into stiffness or ceremonial overload, this evening retained an intimacy and warmth that makes it especially loved within the profession.
Much of that atmosphere came from the Master, Virginia Cannon, who hosted with remarkable generosity, inclusivity and effortless charm. Good Masters shape these occasions more than perhaps they realise, and the Master brought exactly the right tone: gracious but relaxed, polished but never pompous. Her speech struck precisely the right note too, warm and witty without overstaying its welcome, which is a skill that deserves recognition in itself at legal dinners. The food was excellent throughout. Lamb formed the centrepiece of the supper and was accompanied by wines that flowed maybe a little too liberally. Dessert — a beautifully fresh berry creation — provided the perfect ending to a menu that managed to feel celebratory without tipping into excess.
And that, perhaps, is the secret of this particular event.
The annual service and supper is not really about spectacle, although there is plenty of that. Nor is it about networking, despite the formidable concentration of legal talent in the room. It succeeds because it feels human. People actually talk to one another properly. Guests linger. There is laughter. The atmosphere is closer to a private club gathering than a formal corporate dinner.
In a profession increasingly dominated by billable hours, regulation, restructuring, AI anxiety and relentless commercial pressure, evenings like this matter more than we sometimes admit. They remind the profession that collegiality, continuity and friendship still have a place in City life.
Besides, where else can one spend an evening walking in procession to the Tower of London, listening to spine-tingling choral music above the burial place of Anne Boleyn, and then eating excellent lamb under glittering chandeliers with some of the City’s finest lawyers?
Only London. And only in the City.
The following members were admitted to the Freedom of the City on Monday, 11th May
BACK IN THE STRAND: SIMPSON’S RECLAIMS ITS PLACE AT THE TABLE
“...and over the years it attracted a formidable guest list. Dickens ate here. So did Conan Doyle, which somehow feels appropriate given the setting. Churchill was a regular.”
There are restaurants you go to for dinner, and then there are restaurants you walk into knowing you’re about to have an experience. Simpson’s in the Strand has always been one of those places. Its reopening under Jeremy King feels less like a launch and more like the return of something London had slightly forgotten it needed. And I for one was beyond excited to retrace my steps. Exactly as when King reopened Le Caprice as the Arlington - this man has a knack of bringing the best back. So, when I knew I had two great foodie American friends coming from Portugal to London for the weekend, it was a no brainer this is where I chose for them. If you want to show off London and English fayre, this has to be the place.
We begin upstairs in the Simpson’s Bar - which feels exactly right. The bar has that quietly confident air that says nobody here is trying too hard. Our champagne (obviously we had to have fizz, we were celebrating Steven’s birthday) appears with perfect timing, not rushed, not delayed, just when you want it. King has always been brilliant at this sort of thing. If you’ve ever sat in one of his dining rooms, you’ll recognise the feeling straight away. Everything is smooth without being showy, attentive without hovering. Simpson’s and King equal class.
It’s a good place to pause and take in the fact that Simpson’s has been doing its thing for nearly two centuries. It started life in 1828 as a chess club and coffee house, which already gives you a sense that this was never meant to be just another restaurant. It quickly became known for serious English cooking, especially its roast meats, and over the years it attracted a formidable guest list. Dickens ate here. So did Conan Doyle, which somehow feels appropriate given the setting. Churchill was a regular. You can almost imagine him settling in, eyeing up the beef. And now I am here - with Steven and Dana.
All of that history could easily feel a bit heavy, but it doesn’t. Or at least, not yet. Because at this point we are still upstairs, champagne in hand, enjoying that slightly anticipatory feeling before dinner properly begins.
Jeremy King’s role in all of this is worth pausing on. He has spent decades shaping London’s restaurant scene, from the aforementioned Le Caprice to Sheekeys to The Wolseley to The Ivy, and what he really understands is how a room should feel. Not just how it looks, but how it works when it’s full of people. Simpson’s had been closed since 2020 and there was a moment when it looked like it might just quietly disappear. Instead, King has brought it back in a way that feels respectful without being fussy. He hasn’t tried to reinvent it. He’s simply reminded us what it’s good at.
King is himself the epitome of Simpson’s; Simpson’s personified. And he seemed to be everywhere tonight. At reception when I arrived. In the bar as we sipped our champagne, in the Grand Divan whilst we ate and finally in Nellie’s Tavern by which time it was very late on a Friday night and he could easily be at home with
“There’s a temptation with somewhere like Simpson’s to ask whether it still feels relevant, which is a slightly odd question when you’re sitting there enjoying yourself as much as the three of us were. Of course it does...”
his family but, no, he is here overseeing that perfection is achieved. He is, as ever, immaculately dressed in an exquisitely tailored suit. Both classic and yet also of the moment. Timeless. This man is a true gentleman - something the world is lacking today. When I reviewed the Arlington for this magazine a couple of years ago, he sent me a handwritten letter to thank me - although at that point he had no idea if what I had said was good or bad. Both he - and this establishmentare bringing back the glamour and elegance and grace of the past right back into our lives today.
Eventually we head downstairs into the main dining room, the Grand Divan, which is one of those spaces that takes your breath away when you walk in and makes you sit up a little straighter without quite knowing why. Dark wood, soft leather, a sense of occasion that doesn’t need to announce itself. We are settled in, napkins in place, and the whole thing starts to feel reassuringly serious. And very special.
Before the main event, there’s the small matter of a prawn cocktail which I could not resist ordering. Honestly, who could? It would be easy for this to feel like a joke, but it doesn’t. It arrives exactly as I hoped it would, properly chilled,
with sweet prawns and a sauce that has just enough sharpness to keep things from tipping into nostalgia. It’s a reminder that classics stick around for a reason. When they’re done well, they’re just good.
And then, ta da, the trolley. Of course, we all opted for the roast beef.
This is the moment Simpson’s is built around. The silver-domed carving trolley comes towards you with a sort of quiet grandeur. There’s something faintly theatrical about it, but that’s entirely the point. You don’t come here for minimalism or understatement. You come for a bit of ceremony.
The carver gets to work with calm precision. No fuss, no unnecessary flourish, just someone who clearly knows exactly what they’re doing. Slices of beef are carved and arranged, Yorkshire pudding is added, and then the gravy which was plentiful - something other establishments could learn to do - with a large gravy boat for each of us. A huge dish of crisp roasties, and vegetables like carrots and parsnips and cabbage was there for us to share. And we offered lashings of horseradish and mustards. It all happens at just the right pace, so you can actually enjoy watching it rather than feeling like it’s being rushed through.
The roast itself is everything we wanted it to be. The beef is tender and full of flavour, the Yorkshire pudding properly risen, the potatoes crisp enough to make a point. It’s generous without being overwhelming, indulgent without tipping into excess. About halfway through you realise you’re not just eating, you’re part of a little performance that has been going on in one form or another for generations. Of course, we had a good red to go with it; we chose a Gigondas which was sublime - and reasonably priced too.
One of the nicest things about the room is that it doesn’t feel like a museum piece. Yes, you’re very aware of the history, but it’s not frozen in time. The place is properly alive. People are talking, laughing, leaning in over their plates. It feels like a restaurant, not a relic. That’s probably the trickiest balance to get right, and it’s where King really earns his keep.
There’s a temptation with somewhere like Simpson’s to ask whether it still feels relevant, which is a slightly odd question when you’re sitting there enjoying yourself as much as the three of us were. Of course it does. But more than that, it doesn’t really need to justify itself in those terms. In a city full of restaurants trying
to be new, different, or quietly groundbreaking, there’s something very appealing about a place that knows exactly what it is and sticks to it.
By the time we get to the end of the meal, we’re aware of having slowed down a bit.
Reluctant to leave, we opt for dessert. We decide to share the rhubarb and apple crumble with vanilla ice cream and it is indeed ample for the three of us.
We choose whisky (of which there are so many to choose from) instead of coffee to match the utter decadence of the place.
The bill arrives discreetly, as it should, but we still don’t want to leave this very different world from the one we left outside several hours ago. Our waiter suggests we try the downstairs bar, Nellie’s Tavern, and escorts us down to yet another startlingly gorgeous and glamorous space where we have one more whisky.
We eventually step back out onto the Strand feeling slightly removed from the usual pace of things.
What Simpson’s offers now is not just a good dinner, although it certainly does that. It’s a sense of continuity. The feeling that some things can come back, not as pastiche or nostalgia, but as themselves, properly restored and ready to carry on.
And honestly, in London right now, that feels like quite a treat.
I loved it. It is already my favourite place in London.
“What Simpson’s offers now is not just a good dinner, although it certainly does that. It’s a sense of continuity. The feeling that some things can come back, not as pastiche or nostalgia, but as themselves, properly restored and ready to carry on.”
THE manWHO TASTED victory: Gérard Basset and the Pursuit
of Perfection
There are, broadly speaking, three kinds of people in the world of wine. There are those who drink it, those who talk about it, and then there was Gérard Basset, who somehow managed to do both while quietly turning the entire discipline into something approaching an Olympic pursuit.
Basset’s story does not begin with inevitability. There is no sense, in its early chapters, of destiny calling from a Burgundian hillside. Instead, it starts with something far more prosaic: a young Frenchman arriving in England in the late 1970s, ostensibly to watch football, and staying on in a country that, at the time, was not exactly synonymous with gastronomic brilliance. Britain’s culinary reputation was, to be kind, functional. Wine service was often an afterthought, something that appeared on the table rather than being introduced to it. Into this landscape stepped Basset, who not only understood wine but possessed the rare ability to make others understand it too. His ascent through the hospitality world was steady rather than spectacular, built on long hours, sharp observation, and a willingness to learn every aspect of the trade. Kitchens, dining rooms, cellars; he absorbed it all. But what distinguished him was not merely competence. It was a kind of intellectual curiosity about wine, a desire to systematise and master it in a way that went far beyond the demands of the job. Where others saw a list, he saw a language. Where others saw bottles, he saw stories. Over time, this curiosity hardened into something more formidable: a sustained, disciplined pursuit of excellence that would eventually lead him to accumulate a set of qualifications so formidable they sound almost implausible when listed together. Master of Wine, Master Sommelier, an MBA in Wine Business; each of these is, in isolation, a career-defining achievement. Taken together, they form something closer to a grand slam of the wine world. And yet even this was not enough. Looming over his career was the title of Best Sommelier of the World, a competition so exacting that it tests not just knowledge but composure, memory, and an almost theatrical precision under pressure.
Basset entered it once and failed. Then again, and failed again. Six times in total he competed, and six times he fell short. In most professions, that would be the end of the matter, a dignified retreat accompanied by the consolations of an already distinguished career. For Basset, it became the central narrative. What emerges, both in his life and in his writing, is not the brittle, ego-driven obsession one might expect, but something far more methodical. Each failure is dissected, understood, and absorbed. Each attempt refines the next. The process becomes not just a means to an end but an end in itself.
When he finally won, on his seventh attempt, at the age of 53, the moment carried a weight that transcended competition. It was not simply a victory; it was the culmination of decades of incremental improvement, a testament to persistence in its purest form. In another life, it might have been the perfect ending. In Basset’s, it became simply another chapter.
“In the end, the book is about work. It is about the quiet, often unglamorous process of getting better at something over time. It is about failure, not as an endpoint but as a stage. And it is about the peculiar satisfaction that comes from pursuing a craft for its own sake, even when the rewards are uncertain.”
Alongside this personal journey ran a professional one that would reshape British hospitality in quieter but equally significant ways. Through ventures such as Hotel du Vin and later TerraVina, Basset helped redefine the role of wine within the dining experience. It was no longer a list to be navigated with trepidation, nor a display of knowledge designed to intimidate. Instead, it became something more conversational, more human. He had an instinctive understanding that wine, at its best, is not about the liquid alone but about the connection it creates; between people, places, and moments.
This philosophy sits at the heart of his memoir, Tasting Victory, recently republished by Académie du Vin Library in a commemorative edition that feels both timely and deserved. The book is, on one level, a straightforward account of his life and career. But what distinguishes it is its tone. For a man who endured repeated professional disappointment before achieving his defining success, there is remarkably little bitterness. Instead, the prevailing note is one of gratitude. He writes about colleagues, mentors, and competitors with a generosity that feels unforced. Even the gruelling preparation for competition, the endless tasting, the relentless study, comes across not as hardship but as privilege.
There is a clarity to his prose that mirrors his approach to wine. Where many writers in this field succumb to the temptation of flourish, Basset resists it. He explains rather than embellishes. His descriptions are precise without being showy, informative without being didactic. The effect is disarming. One has the sense not of being lectured but of being guided, gently and expertly, through a world that might otherwise seem forbidding.
This accessibility is perhaps his greatest achievement, both on the page and in life. Wine, for all its pleasures, has a long history of exclusion. It can be arcane, hierarchical, laden with unspoken rules and coded language. Basset dismantles this without ever appearing to do so. He does not reject expertise, far from it, but he reframes it as something to be shared rather than guarded. Knowledge, in his hands, becomes an act of hospitality.
The later chapters of the book carry an additional weight, written as they were in the shadow of illness. Diagnosed with cancer, Basset approached his memoir with the same discipline that characterised the rest of his life, completing it with a sense of purpose that is quietly moving. It would have been easy, in these circumstances, for the narrative to become sombre or reflective to the point of sentimentality. Instead, it retains its balance. The illness is acknowledged, but it does not define the story. What remains central is the work, the people, and the enduring sense of curiosity that drove him from the beginning.
The commemorative edition enhances this without overwhelming it. Contributions from family and figures across the wine world provide additional perspective, not by elevating Basset into something mythic, but by reinforcing the impression already formed: that he was not only exceptional in his field but also widely and deeply respected as a person. Admiration, in this context, feels almost insufficient. There is a warmth to these reflections that suggests something closer to affection.
If there is a limitation to Tasting Victory, it lies in its very modesty. Basset is not inclined to dramatise his own achievements, and as a result, there are moments where the scale of what he accomplished is slightly underplayed. For readers less familiar with the intricacies of the wine world, a broader contextualisation might have been helpful. Just how rare is it to hold both the Master of Wine and Master Sommelier titles? Just how demanding is the path to becoming the best in the world? These questions hover at the edges of the narrative, occasionally inviting a little more expansion.
And yet, to wish for this is also to misunderstand the nature of the book. Basset is not interested in constructing a legend. He is interested in telling a story, his story, in a way that remains true to his character. The restraint is not an oversight; it is a choice.
The republication of the memoir now feels particularly apt. Wine, like many fields, is in a moment of evolution. It is becoming more global, more inclusive, more open to new voices and perspectives. The old hierarchies are being questioned, the language is shifting, and the audience is expanding. In this context, Basset’s approach feels not dated but foundational. He represents a model of excellence that is rigorous without being exclusionary, authoritative without being overbearing. What lingers, long after the final page, is not a catalogue of achievements but a sense of character. Basset emerges as someone who cared deeply—not just about wine, but about the people who made it, served it, and drank it. His success, when it comes, feels less like a personal triumph than a natural consequence of that care. It is tempting, in writing about figures of this stature, to reach for grand conclusions. To declare them transformative, to assign them a place in some imagined pantheon. But Tasting Victory resists this kind of framing, and in doing so, suggests something more interesting. Greatness, in Basset’s case, is not presented as an abstract quality but as the accumulation of small, consistent acts: learning, listening, refining, trying again.
In the end, the book is about work. It is about the quiet, often unglamorous process of getting better at something over time. It is about failure, not as an endpoint but as a stage. And it is about the peculiar satisfaction that comes from pursuing a craft for its own sake, even when the rewards are uncertain.
Wine, of course, runs through it all. But it is never quite the point. It is the medium through which everything else is expressed: curiosity, discipline, generosity, resilience. In lesser hands, this might feel heavy. In Basset’s, it feels entirely natural. One closes the book with the sense of having been in good company. Not dazzled, not overwhelmed, but quietly impressed. Which, in a way, is exactly how one hopes to feel at the end of a very good bottle of red.
Tasting Victory Is available through https://academieduvinlibrary.com ■
From precedent libraries to prompts The next step for legal drafting
Almost every lawyer maintains a Precedent Library, collections of letters, documents, and draft orders that serve as reliable templates for routine legal tasks. Whether housed centrally save time, promote consistency, and ensure that essential information is communicated accurately. They prevent lawyers from having to repeatedly craft the same content from scratch.
Almost every lawyer maintains a Precedent Library, collections of letters, documents, and draft orders that serve as reliable templates for routine legal tasks. Whether housed centrally within a firm or kept individually by lawyers, precedent banks save time, promote consistency, and ensure that essential information is communicated accurately. They prevent lawyers from having to repeatedly craft the same content from scratch.
Yet while precedents are widely used, most lawyers do not yet have something that may soon become equally indispensable: a bank of prompts for automated legal drafting. A prompt is a
Yet while precedents are widely used, most lawyers do not yet have something that may soon become equally indispensable: a bank of prompts for automated legal drafting. A prompt is a set of instructions given to artificial intelligence, essentially a command or description designed to generate a specific output such as a document, letter, or analysis. Writing a good prompt is much like instructing a trainee solicitor: the instructions must be clear, unambiguous, and thorough. The more detail the prompt contains, the higher the quality of the result. These prompts often include instructions that might seem obvious, such as avoiding Americanised spellings, but are crucial for consistent outputs.
such as a document, letter, or analysis. Writing a good prompt is much like instructing a trainee solicitor: the instructions must be clear, unambiguous, and thorough. The more detail the prompt contains, the higher the quality of the result. These prompts often include instructions that might seem obvious, such as avoiding
daunting; it seemed faster simply to type the letters myself. Yet the capability of AI systems to read and interpret case data changes that calculation. In theory, AI could identify pensions, values, dates, or factual circumstances directly from the matter, eliminating the need for manual data entry. A precedent could therefore evolve into a prompt, an automated set of rules that instructs AI on how to assemble the necessary document.
it for the correct reading order of John le Carré’s George Smiley novels. The idea of drafting complex legal instructions for AI was daunting; it seemed faster simply to type the letters myself. Yet the capability of AI systems to read and interpret case data changes that calculation. In theory, AI could identify pensions, values, dates, or factual circumstances directly from the matter, eliminating the need for manual data entry. A precedent could therefore evolve into a prompt, an automated set of rules that instructs AI on how to assemble the necessary document.
Once created, a prompt could be reused just like a precedent. It could tell the AI to consider the Pensions Advisory Group guidance, relevant Practice Directions, or even the terms of a specific court order. It could dictate formatting, tone, style, and legal framing. After the prompt runs within the secure environment of the case management system, the lawyer would receive a completed draft ready for review.
Once created, a prompt could be reused just like a precedent. It could tell the AI to consider the Pensions Advisory Group guidance, order. It could dictate formatting, tone, style, and legal framing. After the prompt runs within the secure environment of the case management system, the lawyer would receive a completed draft ready for review.
My recent move from private practice to a role with LEAP, a legal technology company specialising in case management software, has given me a new perspective on both precedents and prompts. As Head of Family Law, I now help shape the software to better support family lawyers. Leaving practice meant leaving behind 18 years’ worth of carefully curated precedents; I was hardly going to commit intellectual property theft to take them with me. Instead, I now work closely with LEAP’s precedent libraries, which contain a wide range of template letters and documents designed to streamline legal workflows.
In exploring these templates, I have begun adapting and creating precedents that offer enhanced automation. One example is a letter of instruction to an actuary, which not only pulls through key case details but also uses LEAP’s Word Add-in to offer dynamic questions. The lawyer indicates, for instance, whether a report is ordered or agreed, and the remainder of the letter changes automatically. This creates a more sophisticated tool than a static template, one that reduces repetitive drafting and accelerates routine tasks.
But this still raises an obvious question: what if technology could answer those questions itself by analysing information within the case file? This is where prompts rather than precedents begin to show their potential.
Another example is the preparation of briefs to counsel. Traditional precedents can pull basic information such as names, dates of birth, or case identifiers. But a prompt could go much further. It could analyse the matter file, summarise the children’s arrangements, extract the current issues in dispute, and compile the factual background. This would not replace the lawyer’s judgement, but it would provide a first draft similar to the one a trainee might prepare on their first day, only produced in seconds rather than an hour.
Artificial Intelligence is already reshaping legal practice, whether lawyers embrace it or not. The familiar saying captures the trend well: “AI won’t replace lawyers, but a lawyer using AI will.” Replacing or supplementing precedents with prompts is one way to harness the benefits of AI while preserving the lawyer’s expertise, oversight, and control. Just as precedents did not replace lawyers, prompts will not either. Instead, they represent a natural evolution in how we create, structure, and automate legal drafting in an increasingly digital profession.
When I joined LEAP, I had limited experience with AI prompting. My early use of ChatGPT had been purely personal, such as asking it for the correct reading order of John le Carré’s George Smiley novels. The idea of drafting complex legal instructions for AI was
But this still raises an obvious question: what if technology could answer those questions itself by analysing information within the show their potential.
When I joined LEAP, I had limited experience with AI prompting. My early use of ChatGPT had been purely personal, such as asking
Katie Phillips Head of Family Law in LEAP Verticals
Katie Phillips Head of Family Law in LEAP Verticals
Ferraris
are red, Bugattis are blue…
Car paint codes have zero effect on performance, efficiency or comfort, yet play a major role in nine out of ten purchases. So why do we associate certain brands with certain colours, and how does colour psychology influence our personal choice?
Henry Ford famously said of his Model-T that customers could have it painted any colour they wanted, so long as it was black. The comment wasn’t some clever marketing ploy however; the simple if prosaic truth was that black lacquer dried faster, keeping production lines moving and lowering costs. Likewise, Austin’s FX3 London taxi was bulk purchased by fleet owners in the now archetypal taxi black in the financially lean years following WW2, simply because it was the cheapest option.
As for London’s iconic double decker buses, we can thank the London General Omnibus Company –which ‘rouged up’ its fleet in 1907, in an attempt to distinguish itself from a multitude of competitors. When London Transport was formed in 1933, bringing the system into public ownership, the colour was extended to virtually the entire fleet, largely because customers found red buses easier to spot. By the mid-1990s when both the buses and routes were sold back to the private sector, operators remained contractually bound to paint each and every vehicle at least 80% red, as part of the Capital’s official branding strategy.
In British motorsport, the national speed limit of 12 m.p.h. in 1902 presented a seemingly insurmountable obstacle to hosting the Gordon Bennet Motor Cup, the predecessor to the British Grand Prix. A solution was found by relocating the event to Ireland, where no maximum speed applied at the time. In gratitude for its hospitality and by way of an homage to the Emerald Isle, many British competitors painted their cars in the colour of the shamrock; and hence British Racing Green, or BRG, was born.
The concept struck a chord with those overseeing the early years of motorsport and by the tail end of the 1930s, the deep forest green was prescribed, by the Code Sportif International (CSI) as Britain’s official racing colour in all forms of international competition. Colours were similarly allocated to other competing nations and whilst the regulation was subsequently dropped, the idea was by then firmly rooted in the public imagination. BRG continues to be associated with the racetrack and a number of home-grown manufacturers, especially Aston Martin, Bentley and Jaguar.
Meanwhile, French Racing Blue is immutably bound to Bugatti, after the company cleverly co-opted the lyrical phrase la vie en bleu, in doing so linking the brand to an ethos combining the French sentiments of national pride, excellence, and a deeply ingrained passion for life.
According to motor racing lore, on discovering that the W25 race car painted in Germany’s officially designated racing colour of white was over the weight limit ahead of a 1934 race, Mercedes-Benz scraped off the paint to shed excess weight. After the then shiny aluminium car won the race, Mercedes continued racing in silver and metallic greys, leading commentators and fans alike to dub them the Silver Arrows. Even today, cars featured in the company’s advertising campaigns remain predominantly silver. Which brings us to Enzo Ferrari, without whom no contemplation on the influence of colour in the world of motoring can be complete. Following a trailblazing stint leading Alfa Romeo’s team of superstar drivers to multiple wins, he built his first racing car in 1940 in the same Rosso Corso, or racing red, that was the CSI’s designated colour for Italy.
In the decades that followed, Ferrari produced cars in no less than fifty shades of red including Rosso Tornado and Rosso Lipstick, which can be explored by the Tifosi amongst you at https://rossoautomobili. com/pages/ferrari-colours.
The colour, long associated with performance, passion and danger, achieved peak popularity in mainstream motoring during the 1980s and 1990s - when cars were the ultimate status symbols and excess the norm - fuelled by a powerful combination of economic deregulation, rapid technological advances, and a media landscape that glorified wealth and consumerism. In the UK alone, an estimated 1 in 4 cars on the road were red by 1997. More recently, consumers have turned to monochromatic tones influenced by Apple’s industry defining technology products.
Ferraris, however, remain resolutely red, with approximately 45% supplied in some aptly named colour variant, albeit down from 85% at the 1990s peak. Somewhat ironically, Enzo actually preferred yellow, the official colour of his birthplace, which explains why every Ferrari logo shows a prancing horse against a Giallo Modena or canary yellow background.
Meanwhile and controversially, Ferrari has just released the Luce, its first ever all-electric five-seater model. Boasting an interior devised by Apple’s former chief design officer Jony Ive and a top speed of 192 mph, the car that is already confounding automotive purists can be yours for just £440,000. Needless to say it’s available in multiple shades of red. ■
Joel Leigh is the motoring correspondent of City Solicitor and a Partner at Russell Cooke LLP
DID YOU KNOW?
CALLING FROM THE GRAVE -
The sombre origin of a
British
red icon
In the quiet churchyard of St Pancras Old Church, sandwiched between St Pancras Road and Eurostar’s high speed railway track, stands the tomb of Sir John Soane. One of the most inventive architects of his generation, Soane designed grand public buildings like the original Bank of England. But the monument he built here, in 1816, was intimate and personal. It was a memorial to his beloved wife, Eliza, who had died the previous year. The profound grief Soane experienced was channelled into something that stands completely apart from typical Christian burial markers. It was also, quite unwittingly, the likely prototype for one of Britain's most recognisable objects.
If you have ever felt a faint sense of claustrophobia stepping inside a traditional red telephone box, it might be attributed to the structure's decidedly sombre architectural origins. The blueprint for this vibrant emblem of British communication was, in all likelihood, appropriated from a nineteenthcentury mausoleum.
A monument like no other
The legal and architectural significance of the Soane tomb is immense. It is one of only two graveyard memorials in London to be granted Grade I listed status. The highest level of statutory protection afforded by Historic England is shared with the grave of Karl Marx. The official listing describes a striking and complex edifice: a central domed structure supported on four panelled piers, complete with a sealed basement vault. The dome features open spandrels and is topped by a small drum banded by a snake with its tail in its mouth, surmounted by a pineapple.
While the ornamental snakes and pineapples belong uniquely to Soane's eccentric vocabulary, a simple structural exercise reveals the tomb's hidden legacy. Lop off the drum and pineapple from the pinnacle and what remains is the unmistakable, slightly domed top and rectangular base of the classic red telephone kiosk.
A dead ringer
This striking visual parallel is no accident. The translation of the form from a monument of death to a conduit of modern communication is widely attributed to Sir Giles Gilbert Scott. Scott was likewise a celebrated architect, whose ubiquitous legacy includes Battersea Power Station and the Cathedral Church of Christ in Liverpool. Scott was also a long-serving trustee of the Sir John Soane's Museum - a position he held for some thirty-five years. He was intimately familiar with the tragedy and the architectural brilliance of the St Pancras tomb. Though Scott himself never publicly cited a source for his design, the shallow-domed roof of his telephone kiosk is, as the Soane Museum itself has noted, unmistakably Soanean.
In 1924, the Royal Fine Arts Commission invited three prominent architects, Scott, Sir Robert Lorimer and Sir John Burnet, to submit designs for a national telephone kiosk. The authorities were desperate for an alternative to the existing K1, a bulky and thoroughly unpopular concrete structure introduced in 1921. Scott submitted a timber prototype for what would become the K2 kiosk.
Curiously, the iconic and bright chromatic identity of the box was not Scott's intention. His winning design specified mild steel, painted a muted silver with a blue-green interior. The General Post Office intervened on both counts, dictating that the
kiosks be manufactured in durable cast iron and painted a bold, highly visible red to ensure they could be easily spotted on busy city thoroughfares. The loudest tomb in London
There is a profound, almost poetic paradox in this act of architectural recycling. Scott took a deeply personal monument, one explicitly designed to seal away the dead in eternal silence, and repurposed its shell into a brightly lit, illuminated booth engineered to facilitate endless, lively conversation across the capital. A grieving husband's private tribute to his lost wife was commodified, painted a vibrant red, and replicated thousands of times to become a defining visual signature of not only the metropolis but of the whole country.
Today, the telecommunications technology once housed within these kiosks has been rendered virtually obsolete by the smartphone in every pocket. Yet the architectural shell endures. These red boxes have transitioned from functional utilities to fiercely protected civic heritage, with many individual kiosks now holding Grade II listed status themselves. Others have found new life as miniature libraries, art galleries, tourist information stands and, in a hopeful repost to their design origins, defibrillator stations.
It is a brilliant irony that the most sombre of structures gave rise to the most gregarious and that both, in the end, are deemed worthy of planning protection. ■
This article was provided courtesy of Ian Chapman-Curry, Legal Director in the pensions team at Gowling WLG.and host of the Almost History podcast.
www.almosthistorypodcast.com
The legal sector is undergoing significant change.
From evolving par tnership models to new investment structures and consultant-led firms, the way law firms operate is shifting.
Our new repor t explores what the future holds.
Unlock the full insights at dyedurham.co.uk/repor t-2026/
