None of the editorial or photographs may be reproduced without prior written permission from the publishers. East Park Communications Ltd would like to point out that all editorial comment and articles are the responsibility of the originators and may or may not reflect the opinions of East Park Communications Ltd. Correct at time of going to press.
We are now well into 2025 and the year is already flying by! The sun is starting to shine and I’m sure everyone will agree that it’s so nice once Spring and Summer comes around!
The last few months have seen a plethora of Law Society Awards dinners and events. I had pleasure in attending and representing Northamptonshire Law Society at some of our neighbouring Law Societies’ Awards, including Nottingham and Derby & District.
As you all know, 2025 marks the bicentennial of the Law Society. I had the great opportunity of going to the King Power Stadium to watch Leicester City take on Arsenal in February alongside the President of the Law Society, Richard Atkinson. It was really good to hear his thoughts on how the Law Society is moving forward. I hope some of you managed to get to some of the local events in Leicester to celebrate the bicentennial year.
We had a fabulous ‘afternoon tea’ meeting with members, hosted by Patrons Landmark
Northamptonshire Law Society
Officers & Council Members 2024
President
Sarah Franklin
Vice President
Laura Carter
Immediate-Past President
Maurice Muchinda
Honorary Secretary
Ika Castka
Honorary Treasurer
Afua Akom
Information Group who led the discussion about climate change, sustainability, AI and their impacts on the legal profession, all washed down with a cup of tea and a cream scone!
We had International Women’s Day on 8th March, so I took the opportunity to give a special shout out on our social media pages to the hard working and fabulous female Council members of the NLS –my VP Laura Carter, Ika Castka, Sharine Burgess, Lindsey Ward, Afua Akom and, not least, the amazing Carolyn Coles who organises us all!
I had a lovely evening representing the Northamptonshire Law Society at the Annual Community Dinner at the Northampton International Academy during Ramadan. I think it’s always special when the community and people from all backgrounds and faiths can come together. The theme this year was ‘Voices in Unity’. If we embrace differences and realise that we can disagree but still get on, then the world would be such a better place.
Constituency Member
Steven Mather
Council Members:
Jabeer Miah
David Browne
Michael Orton Jones
Euan Temple
Oliver Spicer
Sharine Burgess
Edward St John Smyth
Fun was had at the RoKart Challenge Legal Heat and I think we made history by the President (me!) actually taking part with a team – and our immediate past President, Maurice Muchinda was also part of a team! After two hours of hard racing, my team came third and it was a pleasure to hand over the NLS Trophy to the team from Tollers – and I wish them all the best as the competition continues!
We also had a great evening at the Charity Quiz hosted by one of our Patrons, Hawsons at the Sixfields football ground.
Talking of Patrons, I’ve also been having catch ups with some of our amazing Patrons to make sure firstly that they know how much we appreciate their support of our Society, but also so we can discuss how best they can help you, our members. Please do give them your support where possible as they are an important part of our Society.
Keep an eye on your email in boxes and our social media pages, particularly LinkedIn to see all of the seminars and events coming up, including a ‘save the date’ for our 2025 Awards dinner.
Kindest regards
Sarah Franklin
President Northamptonshire Law Society
Lyndsey Ward
Hassan Shah
Society Manager
Carolyn Coles
Northamptonshire Law Society
The Gatehouse, Stable Lane
Pitsford
Northampton NN6 9NG
Tel: 01604 881154
Email: Sec.nls@outlook.com
All Council members should in the first instance be contacted through the Society Manager.
A week in the life of a Motorsport Lawyer
The type of work I undertake as a Motorsport Lawyer generally falls into two categories – Regulatory work and Contract work.
My weekends are usually spent ‘on call’. This means that a driver or team instruct me to be ‘on call’ for their race weekend (usually for the whole racing season or on an individual weekend basis, particularly towards the end of the season when every point can mean the difference between winning and losing a Championship). Prior to the weekend, I will have fully reviewed their Championship Regulations, any amendments and their final instructions. I will follow qualifying and all races either on live streaming, live timing or, if they want, in person at the circuit. Should there be
Come Monday morning, I will usually be dealing with further submissions for clients that I have been ‘on call’ for but my phone will also usually be buzzing from teams and drivers who have lodged appeals over the weekend and need me to act on their behalf with the further submissions to the National Court and representation
in writing from the very beginning is essential – whether it be a sponsorship agreement, a management agreement or a driving agreement with a team. Generic contracts, in my opinion, often cause confusion and don’t include everything that is needed, so, particularly during the off season, I spend a lot of time negotiating
any issues either with eligibility of their vehicle or on-track actions, I am there to advise how to deal with this, whether to appeal to the National Court (a Motorsport Tribunal) and, if so, the procedure and fees to do so. If it’s an Internation Championship, the appeal is to the FIA Court of Appeal in Paris and the procedure is far more complex (including having to do everything in English and French!). Those of you that follow my social media will be aware that I represented a team and drivers in a case last year before the International Court of Appeal in Paris and our successful result gave my clients an International Championship win.
at the subsequent hearing. I’ll also be dealing with disciplinary and investigatory procedures which may have been started.
Proceedings in the National Court are extremely time sensitive and one of the most common mistakes I see is drivers and teams not lodging appeals in time or not paying the fee correctly to the governing body, Motorsport UK.
Having been racing sports cars and tin tops myself for over 18 years, I think my ‘on track’ experience enables me to fully understand what’s going on and to put it across to the Court. It puts my clients at ease to know that I ‘get it’.
The other side of my work is Contracts –everything from Formula 1 down to Karting and everything in between. Having things
and preparing bespoke contracts – often picking up things that they probably haven’t even thought of. I’ve also recently had to deal with contracts that clients have ‘had a go’ at using AI – which has thrown up all sorts of interesting phrased and wordings!
I also, of course, deal with cases when things have gone wrong (either with or without a contract in place) and try to reach a resolution in disputes between teams, drivers and sponsors or take the necessary Court action if an agreement can’t be reached.
And, in between all that, if I’m not racing myself (most recently in a Clio Gen 4), you’ll find me at a race track supporting drivers and marshals in my role as Ambassador of the British Motorsport Marshals Club and as a member of the British Women Racing Drivers Club. Being a motorsport lawyer is certainly a busy life!
ReviewSolicitors Responds to SRA’s
Call For ‘Universal Approach’ Study on consumer vulnerability in the legal market
ReviewSolicitors, the UK’s leading legal-specific review platform, has welcomed calls by the SRA to make the sector more accessible for vulnerable consumers.
Following a recent study on consumer vulnerability in the legal market, SRA Chief Executive Paul Phillip said: “It is clear that, in order to improve accessibility, build trust, and reduce complaints, the legal sector could look at designing services tha t are accessible and inclusive for everyone.”
The research, carried out by Professor Harriet Pierpoint and Dr Paolo Baffero (University of South Wales), highlighted the complexity of defining and quantifying client vulnerability.
Instead of focusing on individual adjustments, the study recommended a ‘universal practice’ approach, encouraging legal services to break down barriers to become more easily attainable.
Adam Hall, Head of Partnerships at ReviewSolicitors, said: “We’re delighted to see the findings of this study. At ReviewSolicitors we’re proud to offer a widely accessible and user-friendly platform, supporting vulnerable individuals to find reliable legal recommendations.
“The report also encouraged law firms to seek more ‘opportunities for consumer feedback’. This approach aligns closely with our commitment to transparency and client engagement, which is key to empowering informed decision-making.”
For more information on how to best approach upcoming SRA regulations, please email Adam, Head of Partnerships at ReviewSolicitors.
Adam.hall@reviewsolicitors.com
Customer Care @ Companies House
Following some recent requests from our Customers, I would like to share the names of the current team members.
We are not currently able to provide you with a designated person to deal with all your queries and the quickest way for response remains to email us @ customercare@companieshouse. gov.uk, we ensure this mailbox is monitored Mon – Fri between 8am – 5pm. Alternatively you can ring us on telephone number: 02921 507480.
Keep up to date with changes to UK company law: https://changestoukcompanylaw.campaign.gov.uk/changes-at-a-glance/
Thank you for your feedback and general support.
Kind Regards
Ceri
Ceri | Operational Leader - Customer Care Manager | Companies House General Customer Care Tel: 02921 507480
Email: customercare@companieshouse.gov.uk
Web: www.gov.uk/companieshouse
Follow us on Twitter: @CompaniesHouse
You can also follow us on Facebook and LinkedIn @CompaniesHouse, and subscribe to email updates from Companies House: https://public.govdelivery.com/accounts/UKCH/subscriber/new
Climate change: now included in Sitecheck Combined
Climate change impacts every industry and how we live. From April 1, 2023, landlords must demonstrate buildings have reached the highest Energy Performance Certificate (EPC) band. This requirement highlights the importance of understanding climate risks during property transactions.
Why it matters for conveyancers and solicitors
The Law Society will publish a Climate Change Practice Note in May 2025, providing guidance on solicitor duties in conveyancing, regardless of firm size or specialisation. This note aims to offer practical advice on climate change risks in transactions.
Supporting your due diligence
Landmark has integrated a market-leading climate change module into the Sitecheck Combined report, used by the top 20 law firms. This module offers a forward-looking analysis of climate impacts on properties, including physical risks like flooding and coastal erosion, and transitional risks like energy efficiency.
Keeping it clear & concise
• Front page: At-a-glance view of potential climate risks with a link to the executive summary.
• Executive summary page: Simplifies climate risks for easy client understanding, with recommendations and detailed insights.
• Transition risk: Provides EPC information on energy efficiency and future compliance costs.
• Polygon search functionality: Allows precise area assessments.
• Data section: Detailed results with mapping and graphics on future risks.
Landmark expertise and support
The climate assessment is based on UK Climate Projections (UKCP18) from the Met Office, offering short, medium, and long-term risk analysis. Supported by expert professionals, Landmark ensures accurate environmental search information.
Simple, straightforward but never standard
Landmark’s remastered Sitecheck
Combined report sets a new standard for commercial environmental searches. With intuitive design and industry-leading data interpretation, these reports empower you to deliver exceptional service to your clients.
Benefits that matter
• Effortless clarity: Simple navigation to identify risks and next steps quickly.
• Streamlined decision-making: Fewer false positives and clearer data interpretation.
• Enhanced coverage: New modules like climate change and ground stability.
• Cost and time savings: Ancillary report data included as standard.
Explore the future of environmental due diligence
Landmark’s new commercial product portfolio sets a new standard for environmental searches. To find out more about Landmark’s remastered commercial reports visit: https://hubs.la/Q03dvGcL0
If you have any questions, our award-winning customer service team is here to help at 03300 366 619 or via email at helpdesk@landmark.co.uk.
Black History Month: Breaking the silence around baby loss and disparities experienced by Black Women
Baby loss is frighteningly common. According to the latest statistics available from Tommy’s, an estimated one in five pregnancies ends in miscarriage. However, if you are a black woman, the statistics are far worse. In 2021, The Lancet, working with Tommy’s National Centre for Miscarriage Research, published a paper showing that black women had a 43 per cent increased risk of miscarriage compared to white women, and a greater risk of infant mortality and maternal death. With women making up 53 per cent of the legal profession this experience will be a reality for many working in the sector.
In June 2022 I experienced my first miscarriage. I was six months into a new role, and it is a time that I will never forget. I recall trying to remain composed during my meetings for the day, then opting to turn off my camera to conceal my tears. However, my line manager was extremely supportive and I took time off as compassionate leave under the Pregnancy Loss Policy, while the aftercare that I received from Dentons was excellent.
Soon after I experienced my miscarriage, the bleak statistics surrounding black women and baby loss began to resonate. To my surprise, the majority of black women that I confided in, from my mother, sisters, other family members, and friends, had all experienced baby loss in some form. A few had experienced multiple miscarriages. Yet what became clear was that, within the black community, this was rarely spoken about. There appeared to be an eerie silence surrounding the subject, with many women seemingly opting to ‘remain strong and put on a brave face’.
Ultimately driven by the startling statistics in relation to maternal care for black women, my personal experience of a miscarriage, and a passion to see positive change, came my motivation to break the silence. Thinking of all the women in the profession, I feel there needs to be greater awareness.
In October 2023 Dentons’ Black Professionals Network, in collaboration with Inspire – Dentons’ Gender Equality Network, organised a panel event entitled ‘Breaking the Silence: Baby loss and disparities experienced by Black Women’ to mark the beginning of Black History Month and Baby Loss Awareness Week. I spoke alongside an esteemed panel of internal and external speakers, including Sandra Igwe, CEO and founder of ‘The Motherhood Group’; a social enterprise that supports the black maternal experience, and Alicia Burnett, a registered midwife working for the baby and pregnancy charity Tommy’s. Collectively, we spoke about the unfortunate truths surrounding baby loss, in what was an illuminating and impactful discussion.
I spoke candidly about my experience of pregnancy loss, and the common experience amongst black women regarding poor treatment during pregnancy by healthcare professionals following baby loss, and the inefficiencies in healthcare to adequately support those who have experienced baby loss.
Separately, I highlighted the unfortunate need for expectant mothers to often advocate for themselves, as I did, to ensure that their maternal health concerns are not dismissed against a backdrop of conscious and unconscious bias.
At the time of my miscarriage, one of the doctors that I saw suspected that I had an ectopic pregnancy, which differed from the opinion of the other doctors I had seen. In the absence of a clear diagnosis, I risked having an operation to remove one of my fallopian tubes, if it was not for the fact that I sought a second opinion from a family member who is a doctor in America.
As a panel, we considered the emotional toll of baby loss on birthing and nonbirthing parents and discussed how best to offer practical support to all those affected by baby loss. I canvassed ideas on how the black maternal experience can differ, and the importance of holistic and culturally appropriate approaches to maternal healthcare.
Law remains a fast-paced, demanding, and at times, a challenging career. There is pressure on black female solicitors to perform professionally in an industry where we remain under-represented, and this can often conflict with the need to ask for support after experiencing baby loss, and the emotional and mental health toll thereafter. I believe it is imperative that there is a call to action for all organisations, to effect positive change, through policies and tangible support in the workplace, to help those who have experienced baby loss, and to overcome some of the challenges.
In January this year, my husband and I welcomed a baby girl. Prior to going into hospital, I had fears regarding our welfare and wrestled with thoughts of whether we would be OK. Thankfully, I safely delivered my daughter without complications by a team led by an excellent black doctor.
While momentarily my fears had been dispelled, tragically, shortly afterwards, I found out that in the same month that I had given birth, a relative had a sudden and untimely death while in the early stages of pregnancy. The irony of it is that she herself was a doctor.
Sadly, she is not the first black woman that I know who has died in pregnancy, and it is a stark reminder that there is still a huge amount of research and investment that needs to be done surrounding the subject, to protect the interests of black women and their unborn babies.
Afua Adane Legal counsel at Dentons
Data risk issues for law firms: Paper and digital storage and transfer
Storing and transferring both paper and digital data and records can present risks to law firms if not managed properly.
The transition from hard copy files to electronic records is a significant step for law firms, one that can enhance efficiency and accessibility and ensure compliance with legal and regulatory requirements. Below are key considerations to keep in mind during this process, particularly regarding file retention and server considerations.
1. Regulatory requirements
Firms should appreciate the minimum regulatory requirements e, for example anti-money laundering (AML) has prescribed periods for record retention:
Your responsibilities under money laundering supervision - GOV.UK (www.gov.uk): https://www.gov.uk/guidance/ money-laundering-regulations-yourresponsibilities#record-keepingrequirements
The Money Laundering, Terrorist Financing and Transfer of Funds (Information on the Payer) Regulations 2017 (legislation.gov.uk): https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ uksi/2017/692/regulation/40
2. File retention periods
Under the Latent Damage Act, liability can extend beyond the standard six years to a maximum of 15 years. Some claims may arise within this timeframe, and it is prudent to retain relevant documents. You can consider different retention policies dependent on practice area, as some areas run a greater risk of claims arising outside the normal six-year primary limitation period.
Special cases: For files involving minors or trusts, longer retention periods may be warranted. Similarly, liability under a deed is typically 12 years, making a 15-year retention period for such files reasonable.
Also, there may, theoretically, be a risk of extended limitation periods under the Building Safety Act 2022 (15 to 30 years, depending on when the cause of action arose). Claims under the Civil Liability (Contribution) Act 1978 may be possible against clients, or even the firm, for up to two years after a judgment on historic matters, although it is unlikely that a direct claim would be made, and there might be challenges.
Industry standards: While HMRC suggests a standard limitation of six years plus one (total of seven years), some law firms opt for longer retention periods, such as 16 years, to cover different limitation arguments. The Law Society provides guidance on specific practice areas, for example, its guidance on file management when closing:
returned to the client. Additionally, it is important to obtain confirmation of receipt from the client, ensuring there is a clear and comprehensive record of all items returned.
4. Data minimisation and justification
Minimum necessary data: Only retain personal data that is essential for the firm’s operations. This aligns with data protection principles and reduces the risk of unnecessary exposure.
5. Security considerations
Data security standards: The security measures applied to retained data must meet or exceed the standards of current systems. Legacy data stored on outdated servers or software may be vulnerable to breaches.
Original documents must be treated with utmost care and consideration. Unless explicitly stated otherwise in the retainer agreement or agreed upon with the client, it is essential that original documents are
Access control: Ensure that retained data is kept offline from other systems and is not accessible to current users without proper authorisation. Implement a formal process for access requests, requiring appropriate sign-off.
Learning from incidents: The case of Tuckers (https://www.lawgazette.co.uk/ news/firm-fined-almost-100000-overransomware-attack-/5111806.article), which faced a fine due to a data breach involving legacy data, underscores the
importance of robust security measures. The Information Commissioner’s Office (ICO) highlighted the firm’s failure to implement basic security protocols, including multi-factor authentication (MFA), patch management, and encryption of personal data, which are all part of the 12 key cyber controls: https://www.marsh.com/en-gb/services/ cyber-risk/insights/cyber-resiliencetwelve-key-controls-to-strengthen-yoursecurity.html
6. Costs of storage
Initial setup costs: Assess the costs associated with acquiring the necessary hardware and software for electronic storage, including servers, cloud storage solutions, and document management systems. Factor in the costs of scanning hard copy documents and converting them into electronic formats.
Ongoing storage costs: Evaluate the costs associated with different storage options. Cloud storage may offer scalability and flexibility, but ongoing subscription fees can accumulate. On-premises storage may
require significant upfront investment, but could lead to lower long-term costs. Consider the costs of maintaining and upgrading storage systems, including software updates and technical support.
Data management costs: Implementing a document management system (DMS) can streamline file retrieval and management, but may involve licensing fees and training costs for staff. Ensure that robust backup solutions are in place to protect against data loss, which may involve additional costs for backup software or cloud services.
Compliance and security costs: Allocate budget for compliance-related expenses, such as audits, legal consultations, and training on data protection regulations. Invest in security solutions to protect stored data, including encryption and intrusion detection systems.
Scalability and future costs: Plan for future growth and the potential increase in storage needs. Choose scalable solutions that can accommodate expanding data without incurring
excessive costs. Regularly review storage costs and usage to identify opportunities for optimisation.
7. Implementation of best practices
Regular audits: Conduct regular audits of data retention and security practices to ensure compliance with legal requirements and industry standards.
Training and awareness: Provide training for staff on data protection, retention policies, and security measures to foster a culture of compliance and vigilance.
If you have questions about data and records storage and transfer, please contact your Marsh representative.
John Kunzler
Managing Director, Risk and Error Management, Marsh UK
Victoria Prescott
Senior Vice President, Risk and Error Management, Marsh UK
Recovering Possession as a Landlord After a Tenant is convicted of a serious offence
Hajan v Major & Burgesses of the London Borough of Brent [2024] EWCA Civ 1260 (23 October 2024)1
Summary
The first case concerns a secure tenancy, brought by Amer Hajan (“Tenant”) against The Mayor & Burgesses of the London Borough of Brent (“Landlord”).
The second concerns an assured tenancy, brought by Janet Kerr (“Tenant”) against Poplar Housing and Regeneration Limited Community Association (“Landlord”).
They both raise questions about the procedure in which a landlord must follow in order to recover possession of a dwelling house on the ground of anti-social behaviour resulting in a conviction for a serious offence.
Hajan v Brent
Facts
In March 2010, the Tenant was granted a secure tenancy of a one-bedroom flat, therefore protected by the Housing Act 1985. In June 2022, the Tenant was arrested after threatening staff and causing damage at a Civic Centre, which he pled guilty to an offence under Section 1 of the Criminal Damage Act 1971 and was sentenced in September to 200 hours community service and 10 days rehabilitation activity.
In November, the Landlord served notice seeking possession of the flat, as required by Section 83 of the 1985 Act under grounds in schedule 2:
• Ground 1: arrears of rent or breach of tenancy obligations
• Ground 2: anti-social behaviour
The notice relied on noise nuisance, drug dealing, attempted arson and possession of a weapon, as well as the conviction above. On these grounds the court can make an order for possession if it considers it reasonable to do so. Proceedings were issued in December.
After receiving the certificate of the Tenant’s conviction, in May 2023, the Landlord served a further notice seeking possession on the ground of anti-social behaviour. This time they relied on the mandatory ground for possession in Section 84A in the 1985 Act. It also informed the Tenant of his right to seek a review of the Landlord’s decision but he did not.
Issues
Whether a landlord who serves a notice can apply to amend the existing proceedings to allow reliance on that ground, or whether the Landlord should begin fresh proceedings. As the notice should specify when proceedings will begin, but the proceedings have already begun so this requirement cannot be complied with.
This is because under Section 83ZA if the 1985 Act the date must be specified for when the proceedings will begin, and Section 83A says the court should not entertain proceedings unless they are after the specified date.
First Instance
When a matter of this type comes to the court, the court must proceed in three stages, to consider whether:
1. The grounds or grounds relied on have been established
2. It is reasonable to make an order for possession
3. To exercise the power to postpone, suspend or stay the order or to do so on terms
The Tenant argued the Landlord could not rely on the mandatory ground because the proceedings were not in process after the expiry of the S83ZA notice, which is required.
The Landlord argued that the application to amend should be included within the meaning of “proceedings” and “begun”.
Decision
In July 2023, the court granted permission to amend the Particulars of Claim to the mandatory ground for possession. The Tenant sought permission to appeal against this order which was granted, to be heard alongside the second case below.
Decision on appeal
Dismissed. This case confirmed Landlord’s may amend claims to rely on the
Book Reviews
ARBITRATION AND MEDIATION IN NINETEENTH-CENTURY ENGLAND
By Francis Calvert Boorman and Rhiannon Markless
ISBN 978 1 91963 184 4
HOLO BOOKS/THE ARBITRATION PRESS
www.holobooks.co.uk
THE LAST IN THE SERIES OF GREAT ARBITRATION SERIES OF BOOKS FROM HOLO AND FROM DEREK ROEBUCK.
We owe a debt to the late Derek Roebuck for his excellent series of books on the history of mediation in England, finishing off with this work entitled “Arbitration and Mediation in Nineteenth-Century England” published by Holo Books and the Arbitration Press.
This new title has been written by his collaborators on the previous volume, “English Arbitration and Mediation in the Long Eighteenth Century”, by Francis Calvert Boorman and Rhiannon Markless. It is a great final tribute.
Modern lawyers realise that arbitration remained a vital institution in nineteenth-century England. The book investigates how the settlement of disputes changed from the end of the Napoleonic Wars to the Arbitration Act
LEGAL AID HANDBOOK 2024/25
The 2024 Standard Civil Contract and The 2025 Standard Crime Contract
Edited by: Vicky Ling, Sue James and Simon Mullings
ISBN: 978-1-913648-68-8
Legal Action Group
Supported by The Law Society
www.lag.org.uk
appreciation by Elizabeth Robson Taylor of Richmond Green Chambers and Phillip Taylor MBE, Head of Chambers and Reviews Editor, “The Barrister”, and Mediator
1889. It was a time in legal history of substantial upheaval “in the demographics, society and economy of England” which has, of course, repeated itself since. There was a booming population in Victorian times unlike today, linked together with emerging urbanisation and the growth of factory production. The Victorians created newly enriched industrialists from the wealth they generated, which also produced a burgeoning working class with squalid urban conditions which has been well documented.
As the writers observe, the growth in new technologies and industries such as the railways expanded for everyone. The introduction of massive change from what we now call the “Industrial Revolution” with flourishing new business organisations and opportunities led to change. Along with production and international trade growth in England, came its imperial ambitions and social unrest… and disputes!
And these changes led to new forms of “dispute” to go with the age-old differences over land and debts, and within the family. The authors explain how arbitration continued to be used and was adapted to suit novel and diverse challenges in the nineteenth century. This included an overloaded legal system which needed modernisation (as today), the rise of anonymous credit transactions and an increasingly organised labour movement. So, nothing much has changed!
The relationship of arbitration to the legal profession and the commercial community is well explored, with their different positions on the visions of how arbitration should be structured and regulated as an emerging alternative dispute resolution process.
The expanding use of arbitration as a tool of governance is usefully examined, with the increasing use of statute based law for both national and local issues.
We liked Francis and Rhiannon’s description of the international perspective, viewing arbitration as a separate process to bring peace between nations on the international stage, and also used in various aspects of the slave trade as attempts to end it increased.
For those reading the book, the elucidation of “the varied experiences of both parties, from aristocratic mine-owners to widowed businesswomen, and arbitrators” is most usefully explained.
This final work is a worthy tribute to the lasting impact of Derek Roebuck’s scholarship on this important and yet often ignored or sidelined area of the legal process. We own enormous gratitude to Derek and to his widow Susanna Hoe for his enduring works. Thank you.
The date of publication of the hardback edition is cited as June 2024.
CONFUSED BY THE COMPLEXITIES OF LEGAL AID?
THIS IS THE ONLY COMPREHENSIVE GUIDE TO THE LEGAL AID SCHEME -NOW IN ITS NEW ANNUAL EDITION FOR 2025
“Without legal aid, there is no access to justice.” In their terse and to the point introduction to this latest edition of the celebrated “Legal Aid Handbook” (published annually), editors Vicky Ling, Sue James and Simon Mullings have certainly set out to remind everyone involved in the justice system of this
painfully obvious and uncomfortable truth for the 2020s.
Legal aid and advice, as they rightly insist, is a public service, critical, indeed, to ensure the fairness of the justice system. One might add, in tandem with the editors, that legal aid is chronically and consistently underfunded, while at the same time, its complexity increases. All the more reason why dedicated practitioners in this challenging and vital area of law should acquire this latest edition of the “Legal Aid Handbook 2024/25” published annually by the Legal Action Group (LAG).
An
An appreciation by Elizabeth Robson Taylor of Richmond Green Chambers and Phillip Taylor MBE, Head of Chambers and Reviews Editor, “The Barrister”.
Companies House
ID Verification
Companies House is to introduce a new identity verification process to help deter those wishing to use companies for illegal purposes.
Anyone setting up, running, owning or controlling a company in the UK will need to verify their identity to prove they are who they claim to be. Read the guidance on verifying your identity for Companies House: https://www.gov.uk/guidance/verifyingyour-identity-for-companies-house
Identity verification will be introduced in a phased approach.
Who needs to verify their identity
From 8 April 2025, individuals can voluntarily verify their identity. You can verify directly with Companies House through GOV.UK One Login, or through an Authorised Corporate Service Provider (ACSP).
In the future, identity verification will become compulsory for:
• new directors and people with significant control (PSCs)
• existing directors and PSCs
• anyone acting on behalf of a company
Identity verification will also apply to other registration types. For example, any members of a limited liability partnership (LLP) will also need to verify their identity.
Verifying your identity directly with Companies House using GOV.UK One Login
You can use GOV.UK One Login (https:// www.gov.uk/using-your-gov-uk-onelogin ) to verify your identity using ID documents, such as a passport.
Verify your identity for Companies House Verifying your identity through an Authorised Corporate Service Provider; https://www.gov.uk/guidance/verify-youridentity-for-companies-house
Authorised Corporate Service Providers (ACSPs) (https://changestoukcompanylaw. campaign.gov.uk/authorised-corporateservice-providers/) are individuals or organisations that undertake anti-money laundering (AML) supervised activity, such as:
• company formation agents
• solicitors
• accountants
• chartered secretaries and governance professionals
From 18 March 2025, anti-money laundering supervised firms and sole traders can apply to become ACSPs (https://www.gov.uk/guidance/applyingto-register-as-a-companies-houseauthorised-agent). ACSPs will also be known as authorised agents.
Identity verification checks carried out by ACSPs must meet the same level of assurance as those who verify directly with Companies House.
If you do not comply with identity verification requirements on time, you’ll be committing an offence. There will be a range of consequences, including a financial penalty. You will not be able to make any filings for your company or start a new company.
David Poole
Stakeholder Engagement Team – External Affairs Team
Companies House
Are you feeling overwhelmed?
Many people who contact LawCare are struggling because they are overwhelmed. They might have agreed to take on additional cases or work late, volunteered to bake cakes for school, juggled numerous social commitmentsall while managing their existing workload and home commitments.
People working in the legal sector are often people pleasers – they like to make other people’s lives easier and solve their problems. The problem with saying yes all the time is it sets a precedent. People will think they can ask you again next time, or that you enjoy doing some of the tasks you would rather not. Whilst it is admirable to want to help others and earn respect from our bosses, colleagues, family, and friends, it’s crucial to occasionally say no. Prioritising your own health, energy, and sanity is essential. Lawyers who don’t learn to say no run a very real risk of burning out.
What to do if you are feeling overwhelmed
Manage your diary
Have a proper look at your diary. Is it packed? Have you said some half-hearted
yes’ to things? Are there things you could cancel? Schedule in personal and work events and block out time to complete various pieces at work so you can see how much time you actually have before you agree to attend another meeting or dinner. Try not to put things in the diary at all if you know you don’t really want to do them, even if they are weeks away. It is unlikely you’ll feel differently nearer the time!
Schedule in down time
It’s important to include and prioritise time for you to rest and relax and just do nothing. Resist the temptation to fill all the gaps in your diary. Sometimes having no plans needs to be your plan – you don’t need to be busy all the time.
Delegate
Make a list of everything you have to do. Is there anything on the list that someone else could do? Are you holding on to pieces of work that could be given to someone else in the team? If it feels like a chore, could you buy the cakes from the shop rather than bake them if you don’t have time?
Stop volunteering for everything If you are feeling overwhelmed now is not the time to volunteer for extra duties. Learn not to automatically agree to do things you don’t have time to do or you will find yourself promising to turn up to every zoom meeting, offering to take notes, volunteering to check someone’s emails when they are on leave. Don’t feel the need to explain why you can’t do something or have an excuse – a simple ‘Thanks I can’t this time’ is fine.
Be honest
If you are feeling overwhelmed and cannot do something within a particular timeframe for whatever reason, then let your colleagues know, preferably face to face. Don’t assume they will be angry - you might be surprised at their reaction, and together you can work out a new plan to move forward.
If you need emotional support call LawCare on 0800 279 6888, email support@lawcare.org.uk, or visit: www.lawcare.org.uk to get in touch using our live webchat.
Winners of Smee & Ford Legacy Giving Awards 2025 revealed
The winners of the prestigious Smee & Ford Legacy Giving Awards were announced yesterday at a ceremony held at London Bankside’s Hilton Hotel. The awards, now in their third year, recognise the outstanding achievements, talent and dedication of UK legacy giving professionals and highlight the significant income that gifts in wills bring to charities, which is set to reach almost £5 billion per year by 2030.
This year’s winners represent a broad range of organisations, from national charities to smaller, specialist causes, all demonstrating best practice in engaging supporters and driving legacy giving forward.
Polly Avgherinos, Managing Director of Smee & Ford, said:
“Congratulations to all the finalists and winners who are inspiring examples of how creative and ambitious thinking combined with innovation and collaboration can make such a positive impact on a vital sector. The event brought together the brilliant legacy giving community, providing a platform for them to share much-deserved pride in their work and benchmark the incredible progress being made in the sector.”
The full list of winners:
Catsnake: The Story Agency Best Creative Partner to the Legacy Sector
The Brain Tumour Charity and Make a Will Online
Best Free Will Service
Foot Anstey
Best Legal Partner to the Legacy Sector
Foot Anstey
Best Property Partner to the Legacy Sector
Soil Association
Best Start-up Legacy Programme
Octopus Legacy
Best Strategic Will Provider 2025
RSPCA
Digital Innovation in Legacy Giving
Debbie Henshaw – Cornwall Air
Ambulance
Director’s Award for Outstanding Legacy Manager
St Elizabeth Hospice
Excellence in Donor Journey & Pledger
Stewardship
Canal & River Trust
Excellence in Working with Lay Executors
Essex Wildlife Trust
Internal Collaboration Champions
Christian Aid
Legacy Administration Team of the Year
Hayley MacNeill – Save the Children Legacy Administrator 2025
Christian Aid
Legacy Campaign of the Year (Income Over £3m)
Leukaemia UK
Legacy Campaign of the Year (Income Under £3m)
National Trust
Legacy Fundraising Event 2025 (Income Over £3m)
Canal & River Trust
Legacy Fundraising Event 2025 (Income Under £3m)
John Coulthurst – British Red Cross
Legacy Fundraising Professional of the Year
Jewish Care
Legacy Fundraising Team of the Year
Howard Taylor – Magen David Adom UK
Legacy Volunteer of the Year
Farewill
Outstanding Partner to the Legacy Sector
Ashley Rowthorn, CEO of Legacy Futures, partners of Smee and Ford, commented:
“The calibre of entries this year was extremely high. Legacy giving is an essential and growing income stream for charities, and these awards highlight the exceptional work being done across the sector to ensure supporters’ wishes are honoured and their impact is maximised.”
Charitable Gifts In Wills Most Prevalent Among Younger Will-Makers
WEDNESDAY 26TH MARCH 2025: The majority of charity supporters in their 40s and over have written a Will (at 61%) and just under one third (31%) of those with Wills have included a charitable gift, according to new research released by Remember A Charity today (https:// www.rememberacharity.org.uk/).
Charitable Wills are most prevalent amongst younger Will-makers, with 34% of those in their 40s and 50s having included a charity, compared with 30% of people with Wills aged 60+.
Charitable legacies now raise more than £4 billion of vital funding a year for good causes across the UK*, with almost 11,000 charities named in Wills**.
Remember A Charity’s consumer benchmarking study*** is carried out by independent research firm OKO and surveys more than 2,000 charity donors aged 40+ annually to track charitable Will-writing attitudes and behaviour. It follows Prochaska’s Stages of Change model and has tracked long-term forward movement in legacy giving from awareness through to preparation and action over the last 15 years. The latest data is for 2024.
This year’s research reveals that the average age of writing a Will is 50 and that half (50%) of those with a Will - and 41% of those aged over 70 - have never updated it. However, the study also found
that supporters are four times as likely to have added than removed a charity when making changes to their Will (43% vs 11%).
Key motivations for including a charitable gift include the recognition that: even a small gift can make a difference (35%); charities rely on gifts in Wills to continue their vital work (30%); and leaving a gift is a natural step after supporting charities for a long time (27%).
For those who have written a Will, but haven’t included a charitable gift, 1 in 4 simply didn’t think about it at the time. The most prevalent reason (63%) for not including a charity was that they wanted to leave everything to family and friends, while 30% said it was because they didn’t have the money or assets to leave a large amount.
The role of solicitors Legal professionals play an important role in making clients aware of the option of leaving a charitable gift in their Will. The research shows that 66% of those who have written a Will used a solicitor.
Lucinda Frostick, director of Remember
A Charity – the UK’s charity consortium working to grow the legacy giving market, says:
“This study shows long-term growth in people’s appetite for including a charity
in their Will, but what’s particularly fascinating is to see how prevalent this has become for younger Will-makers, seeding hope for the future. Over the years, legacy donations have become a crucial income stream for charities and community-based organisations across the UK, building their resilience and funding services for future generations.
“Solicitors and professional Will-writers continue to play a critical role in increasing awareness across their client base of the option of including a charitable gift in a Will, alongside gifts for family and friends.”
Remember A Charity runs a free Campaign Supporter scheme for solicitors and Will-writers (https://www. rememberacharity.org.uk/about-us/ for-solicitors-will-writers/ ), providing promotional resources and useful guidance for referencing legacy giving with clients. Find out more at www. rememberacharity.org.uk/about-us/forsolicitors-will-writers
Climate Change and Flood Risk in Fenland: How Conveyancers Can Advise Clients
Introduction
The impact of climate change on flood risk is becoming an increasingly pressing issue for property transactions, particularly in low-lying areas such as Fenland. Rising sea levels, extreme weather patterns, and evolving flood defence strategies all have a bearing on property due diligence. For conveyancers, understanding these risks is critical in ensuring clients are fully informed before committing to a purchase.
The changing flood landscape in Fenland Historically, the Fenlands have been highly susceptible to flooding due to their flat terrain, proximity to tidal influences, and reliance on man-made drainage systems. The Fenland Level 1 Strategic Flood Risk Assessment (SFRA) indicates that approximately 67% of the district falls within Flood Zone 3, meaning it is considered at high risk of flooding. Climate change is expected to worsen this situation, with projections suggesting that sea levels could rise by up to one metre by 2100, increasing the risk of both tidal and river flooding.
In addition to rising water levels, changes in rainfall patterns are also a significant concern. The frequency of intense rainfall events is expected to increase, leading to more occurrences of surface water flooding. Furthermore, groundwater flooding could become more common as prolonged periods of wet weather heighten soil saturation levels. These factors, coupled with the natural subsidence of Fenland peat soils, pose a growing challenge for property developers and homeowners alike.
Implications for property transactions
A recent study by Geodesys revealed that 1 in 3 customers do not consider a flood report for every transaction, reasoning that property location plays a big part in their decision-making. For conveyancers operating in the region, flood risk assessment is a crucial aspect of due diligence. The presence of flood risk can significantly impact mortgage lending, insurance premiums, and the long-term value of a property. Many lenders now require detailed flood risk reports, beyond the standard Environment Agency flood zone classifications, before approving finance on properties in high-risk areas. To ensure thorough due diligence, conveyancers should look for a full flood risk report providing a comprehensive assessment of the risk to the property.
Insurance considerations are also becoming more complex. While the UK government’s Flood Re scheme provides
affordable insurance for properties at risk, it is only available for homes built before 2009. This means new-build properties in flood-prone areas may face difficulties securing viable insurance cover, which could impact their desirability and resale value.
How conveyancers can support clients
A comprehensive approach to flood risk assessment is essential for conveyancers advising clients in Fenland. Beyond obtaining a standard flood search, solicitors should consider climate change projections, the effectiveness of existing flood defences, and potential mitigation measures. The presence of sustainable drainage systems (SuDS), flood barriers, and raised building elevations can influence a property’s resilience against future flooding.
In addition, local government planning policies are increasingly considering climate change when approving new developments. Conveyancers should ensure that clients purchasing new properties understand any planning conditions or obligations related to flood risk mitigation. In some instances, property owners may be required to contribute to the maintenance of local flood defence schemes, which is a financial consideration for potential buyers.
Jake Hawkey, Account Partner at Landmark Information Group, comments:
“As climate change continues to reshape our environment, the property market cannot afford to overlook its long-term impact. Conveyancers and solicitors must now consider both current and future flood risk to homes and real estate. Landmark is proud to work with Geodesys to provide the foresight needed to provide comprehensive advice in a digestible way that’s easy to communicate, ensuring investments are protected against the uncertainties of a changing climate.”
Conclusion
As climate change increasingly alters the flood risk landscape of Fenland, conveyancers play a crucial role in informing property buyers about these associated risks. By keeping current with flood risk assessments, insurance implications, and local mitigation efforts, legal professionals can offer vital guidance that protects their clients’ investments and ensures long-term security. In an era of growing environmental uncertainty, conducting thorough due diligence in flood-prone areas has never been more crucial.
Geodesys offers a range of flood reports and combined environmental risk searches, providing conveyancers with a comprehensive understanding of flood risks to their clients and enabling them to make more informed decisions about their purchase before proceeding.
To find out more visit: http://www.geodesys.com
Williams-Henry v Associated British Ports Holdings Ltd [2024]
EWHC 806 (KB)
Society Summary
A claimant who sustained a moderately severe brain injury when she fell off a pier was found by the judge to have been been fundamentally dishonest. The judge found that one expert came close to being an advocate for the claimant, while the evidence of other experts was unhelpful because it relied on the claimant’s self report.
Learning points
• A treating clinician called to give expert factual evidence has the same obligation to evaluate the evidence objectively as an expert instructed to give independent evidence.
• A treating clinician called to give expert factual evidence should not come to court without an objective, critical, detailed, proper or balanced clinical understanding of the case.
• A treating clinician called to give expert factual evidence must adequately research the case and read all relevant clinical records.
• It is necessary to carry out a capacity assessment before signing a report as to a patient’s litigation capacity.
• Self report information, given to an expert by a claimant, has to be cross referenced with medical notes and other evidence such as videos, social media communications, and employment records.
• Contradictions in medical notes, videos, social media communications, employment records, etc, must be considered objectively.
• If you come up with a new diagnosis off the cuff long after the joint reports during re-examination, do not be surprised if the judge rejects it.
• A summary of extensive treatment needs to be accurate.
• Be prepared for a question as to how many sets of instructions you have received from your instructing solicitors.
• Beware basing a complicated theory on a facile test.
• Evidence peppered with dissemination and long-winded explanations may not carry much weight.
• Being happy to pass comment on matters which support the Claimant’s claim but not to balance that with objectivity will suggest partisanship.
The case
The claimant sustained a moderately severe brain injury when she fell off a pier. The main issue at trial was whether the claimant had been fundamentally dishonest. The second issue was the correct assessment of the quantum of the claim.
Expert evidence
There was expert evidence from neurology, neuroradiology, orthopaedics, neuropsychology, pain, ENT, physiotherapy and care.
There was expert factual evidence from a psychologist who provided private neurorehabilitation to the claimant. Under cross examination she accepted she had carried out no neutral evaluation of all of the evidence. She only had a partial picture. When the fact that the claimant had failed the effort tests with one of the independent neuropsychologists was put to her, she asserted it was a misconception to consider that a failure of effort tests could be equated with malingering. In January 2024 she had declared that the Claimant lacked capacity but accepted that she did not carry out validity testing before she did so. She accepted that one of the independent experts queried the reliability of the information that she had relied upon in coming to that conclusion. She accepted she took the Claimant and her mother at face value. She denied that she did not have the information necessary
to overturn the presumption of capacity in early 2024.
Whilst the judge accepted that the psychologist was well motivated, he did not consider that she adequately researched or read the Claimant’s rehab notes. Nor did she exercise sufficient objective insight into the likely mental health effects of her recommendation that the Claimant should take a sabbatical. Even by the time of trial she did not appear to understand how that recommendation had led to the tailspin of suicidal ideations and depression because of the Claimant’s loss of self-esteem because she was no longer in work. The judge considered that she did not gain a full or accurate picture relating to the Claimant’s NHS rehabilitation. The judge found that she and the case manager appeared to have accepted everything the Claimant and her mother told them at face value without having an objective, critical, detailed, proper or balanced clinical understanding of the Claimant’s 4 years of progress since the accident and the NHS therapy she had already received, which kept her in work and socially active.
The Claimant’s treating psychiatrist sought to explain why he jointly signed the lack of litigation capacity report provided by the treating psychologist in January 2024, despite having carried out no assessment of the Claimant himself. The judge found his answers in this issue unimpressive. The psychologist had not carried out a cognitive assessment and he had carried out no assessment at all. The judge did not consider that he should have countersigned the report.
Having heard both independent neurologists give evidence the judge found Dr Humphrey to be thoughtful and thorough (despite not being given some documents which should have been given to him earlier). Cross examination did not undermine him. The judge accepted his opinions and preferred them to Dr X who, in his judgment, was too accepting of the self report information given to him by the Claimant, failed adequately to cross reference it with contradictory
medical notes, and later failed to tackle the videos, the social media, her employment annual reviews and failed to consider the contradictions therein with sufficient objectivity. The judge took into account that Dr X’s first examination of the Claimant was carried out by video despite lockdown having ended. He found it difficult to comment on the assertions of benign positional paroxysmal vertigo. He overlooked the December 2017 note of her pre-accident spinal pain. He accepted in cross examination that there was no neurological reason why the Claimant could not live alone. At most he supported mild, nuisance level left sided weakness due to the traumatic brain injury. He accepted that the Claimant had no significant physical neurological issues. In re-examination he came up with a new explanation for her presentations: functional neurological disorder. This means no more than subconscious exaggeration and the judge rejected that opinion produced off the cuff long after the joint reports.
Turning to the report of the claimant’s neuropsychologist, the judge noted that she asserted she had worked as a clinical neuropsychologist in the NHS since 2005 and “covered” the position of consultant clinical neuropsychologist for the last six years of NHS employment. Looking at her CV she qualified outside the UK, finished the UK statement of equivalence programme in 2007, did a diploma in clinical neuropsychology in Glasgow finishing in 2010 and completed a qualification for the British Psychological Society
in 2011. She completed a doctorate in clinical psychology carrying out research on symptom validity at the University of Essex in 2014. She set up her expert witness business in 2009 and from that time forwards she provided medico-legal reports. She asserted in her CV that 60% of her work was for claimants but accepted in cross examination that the true figure was 80 to 90%. Looking at the papers she published from 2014 to 2021, many focused on malingering, functional disorders, validity testing, credibility, chronic pain, causation in medical reports, borderline capacity and the like. She asserted that she practised in the NHS currently but the CV showed posts at six different NHS establishments between 2005 and 2017 and no NHS practice thereafter. In evidence she accepted that her practice was substantially medico-legal alongside some private neuro-psychology treatment. She formulated the opinion that the Claimant suffered a moderately severe TBI and had some NHS treatment which then stopped, due to work. This was not an accurate summary of the extensive treatment given. The judge carefully listened to her verbal evidence. It was peppered with dissemination and long-winded explanations. In cross examination she agreed that she set up her medico-legal consultancy before she completed her qualifications. She stopped NHS work in 2017. She turned out 3-4 medico-legal reports per month and asserted she did so within 2 weeks of being instructed. She could not recall how many sets of instructions she received per annum from the Claimant’s large personal
injury solicitors’ firm. The judge found her evasive in that answer. She accepted that she was surprised when she learned about the Claimant engaging in Surfability but she did not change her opinion. She disseminated as to why she did not feel the videos and social media undermined her opinion. When pressed by careful and professional cross examination she accepted she was surprised by some of the matters shown on the social media disclosure. Finally, she accepted that it appeared that the Claimant had given her a worse account of her symptoms than the reality but watching the process of getting her to admit that was like watching counsel pushing a boulder up a steep hill. She could not explain why she did not raise the DWP exaggerations (which the judge found were lies) in her final opinion or report. She could not explain why she had not cross referenced the workplace reviews with her opinion. She maintained, despite her substantial publications on symptom validity testing, that the Claimant’s failure to pass validity testing on her testing was not likely to be malingering. The judge did not find her explanation of her opinions to be persuasive on this issue. She avoided many of counsel’s questions with dissemination. When challenged on the Claimant’s own self-assessment that she had “smashed” her previous lack of diplomacy, she said it was “difficult for me to comment” whether this showed insight by the Claimant into her TBI symptoms. The judge did not see why it was difficult. She was happy to pass comment on matters which supported the Claimant’s claim but not to balance
that with objectivity. The judge was unimpressed with her opinion in her first report that the Claimant needed lifelong case management and 42 hours per week of care. Her answers in cross examination were equally unimpressive. When challenged on that opinion she accepted that she had just accepted everything which the Claimant had told her.
Turning to the pain experts, Doctor D advised that any leg pain was caused by her degenerate disc not the accident (not his field). As to the pelvis, he accepted that it was likely that there was some pain still caused by the fall (not supported by the experts in orthopaedics). As to the right hip Dr M considered there was some pain due to band snapping or trochanteric bursitis, but Dr D deferred to the consultant orthopaedic surgeons who did not so find. The judge rejected Dr M’s opinion on the orthopaedic aspects of this case. He should have deferred. In his verbal evidence the judge found Dr M’s formulation to be unhelpful and unrealistic. He was not prepared to separate out accident related factors from naturally occurring factors. He advised that the Claimant was straightforward and clear.
The judge did not accept that opinion. When challenged in cross examination on the agreed evidence from the orthopaedic experts he said he did not go behind that. Yet in his report he had accepted her continuing complaints of pain. He just said: that is what she was feeling. He used an odd diagnostic phrase: he said the pain came from maladaptive excitability of the ankle soft tissues caused by post trauma changes in the soft tissues. He said that there were soft tissue abnormalities when he examined her. When cross examined on exactly what he did by way of examination he admitted he simply put his hand on the ankle and she said it was painful so he withdrew his hand. How that facile test could lead to his complicated theory, the judge did not know. The judge gained the impression that Dr M was a mere supporter of the Claimant’s complaints not an independent and objective expert assisting the Court on what was caused by the accident and what was not.
The judge observed that if he thought other expert’s reports were long, they were overshadowed by the huge, 221 page report provided by Dr D. He said that it would be more helpful to Courts
if a paginated core bundle of medical notes was provided and the expert merely referred to the bundle page number. Where the pain experts were not in agreement, he generally preferred the evidence of Dr D. His approach to each injury was more logical and he carefully read into the notes and filleted out the matters relevant to the accident. However, because the pain experts’ opinions were based on the Claimant’s self-report, he considered that neither could assist him much with the diagnosis or the prognosis or causation.
The judge rejected the evidence of the claimant’s neuropsychologist whom he considered became close to being and advocate for the Claimant.
By Keith Rix
And Finally...
I hope that you all had a wonderful Easter break, and as I write this, we have several long weekends to look forward to.
Since I last wrote, I had a great afternoon with my fellow Law Society counterparts (VP’s and Presidents were also there) in Birmingham, organised by Michelle Foster from Notts Law Society. It is a great way to build relations, share good practices, and support each other. I have been busy supporting the Ian Quayle training event that will be taking place early May, and I had the pleasure of spending a couple of bright blustery hours with Joe Hobbins from HCR Hewitsons planning the legal walk. We have kicked off the planning for the AGM and the NLS Legal Dinner.
Please keep an eye out in on LinkedIn and in your inbox for more details.
Aside from my planning activities we are looking for enthusiastic passionate individuals who would be looking to join Council. Is this is something that is of interest to you, please reach out to any of the council members or you can always contact myself.
