Legal Features

Articles

Fair and loathing

The ruling in Jones v Kernott indicates the court will take greater account of what it considers 'fair' in cohabitation disputes, but will it bring about substantial change or will campaigners have to wait for legislation to reform the law? Adam Colenso considers the likely impact of the decision, while Richard Power, who represented Patricia Jones in the case, gives the inside view

LeO's new naming and shaming policy needs clarification

With the ombudsman set to publish names of lawyers found at fault, firms should take complaints handling more seriously, says Kim Hobbs

Dead on arrival: nobody is interested in alternative business structures

Is the SRA's delay in getting ready for ABSs a clumsy oversight or a clever move accurately judging the mood of the public? asks Kerry Underwood

When all is said and done

Another week and another announcement by a wannabe ABS that it intends to get into the legal services market big time. First it was QualitySolicitors which suddenly raised the temperature last month by selling up to venture capitalists Palamon Capital. Then, a fortnight ago, Cooperative Legal Services – set up by the Co-op in 2006 before the Legal Services Act even received Royal Assent – said it would launch a family legal advice service as soon as the Solicitors Regulation Authority was in a position to regulate alternative business structures. And last week, In-Deed, the conveyancing service set up by Rightmove founder Harry Hill, said it will buy up law firms to expand its legal services offering into areas such as will writing and personal injury work.

Warning signs

Are budget-driven cuts in care funding made by local authorities tantamount to institutional financial abuse? Lawrence Tudin reports

Commercial property update

Magnus Hassett, James Noble and Amy France consider break clauses and vacant possession, uncompleted leases, superior landlord's consent and occupiers' liability

Up for debate

I recently had the dubious pleasure of attending a debate on the future of legal education at UCL. The event was entitled 'Do lawyers need to be scholars?' and was loosely based around the future of legal education and the continuing Legal Education and Training Review. It was certainly an esteemed panel, but unfortunately it was predominantly a panel of experienced academics. The opportunity to engage with those who were going through the process of legal education or with those who had just completed their academic and post-graduate experience was cleverly avoided or intentionally ignored by the academic (of course) chair. Sadly, the 'debate' didn't really get off the ground. It was more a series of generally well-intentioned statements, such as going back to the '3 Rs of law', namely research, writing and reasoning and introducing an additional two Es: ethics and economics.

The devil you know

The number of litigants in person is increasing – but remember they're not the enemy, you just need to know how to handle them, says DJ Tim Jenkins