Making accountability count

September’s promise to extend judicial review reforms to all major infrastructure projects has brought the relationship between economic growth and legal accountability into sharper focus. The government wants to accelerate development and prevent weak challenges from causing delay. Those are legitimate objectives. Yet the profession has good reason to ask how reform will preserve effective scrutiny of public decisions, and what evidence will establish that the changes achieve their purpose.

That question runs through this issue. Across corporate reporting, regulatory investigations and artificial intelligence, authority is being reassessed as institutions seek greater efficiency. Lawyers must examine what those changes mean for the people whose interests the existing safeguards protect. Accountability depends on access to information, the ability to challenge decisions and a clear understanding of where responsibility lies.

David Mendel’s examination of directors’ pay reporting on page 24 illustrates the difficulty. The proposal to remove quoted companies’ annual advisory vote on remuneration would reduce an established opportunity for shareholders to scrutinise how an approved policy has operated. Simplifying lengthy reports could make relevant information easier to understand. Removing a mechanism for expressing dissatisfaction raises a further question about investors’ practical influence. Mendel also identifies a possible consequence: shareholders may respond by demanding tighter restrictions when the remuneration policy next comes up for binding approval.

The value of a safeguard therefore needs to be assessed through its operation. A process can impose a burden while still giving those affected a meaningful voice. Reform should make that voice more effective and establish how concerns will be heard under any replacement arrangements.

Our feature on Carter-Ruck v SRA, on page 44, considers the boundaries of regulatory authority. On 21 September, the High Court held that section 44B of the Solicitors Act 1974 does not permit the SRA to compel production of material protected by a client’s legal professional privilege where that privilege has not been waived. The SRA is seeking permission to appeal. Its concern about access to evidence deserves consideration, while the judgment reinforces the need for clear statutory authority before a fundamental right can be overridden.

For practitioners, the distinction matters. Privilege belongs to the client, and assessing whether particular material attracts protection remains essential. The ruling also leaves solicitors’ obligations to cooperate with legitimate investigations in place.

Hoi-Yee Roper and Ben Amoah’s analysis of fraud investigations, on page 32, approaches professional boundaries from another direction. Bourlakova and Salinas Pliego demonstrate how investigative methods can produce serious consequences beyond the question of whether privilege survives. In Salinas Pliego, a covert operation targeting the opposing solicitor resulted in the discharge of freezing orders. The underlying claim remained, but the loss of interim protection could have substantial practical consequences. Solicitors need to understand how evidence is being obtained and ensure that investigators’ instructions, methods and handling of sensitive material receive proper scrutiny.

Matthias Artzt and John deVadoss extend the discussion to delegated technological authority on page 22. Their analysis of agentic AI asks whether governance designed for passive tools can control systems capable of planning and executing actions. Policies and approval records offer limited reassurance unless organisations can demonstrate what an agent may do, which actions are technically prevented and whether someone can intervene effectively. For legal advisers, understanding the system’s capabilities is becoming integral to assessing the consequences of its use. Oversight must remain effective as permissions, connections and behaviour change.

Helen Bunker’s interview on page 48 provides a practical perspective on the judgment these developments demand. The Blake Morgan chair describes leadership as stewardship, grounded in relationships, commercial understanding and care for colleagues and clients. Her emphasis on listening is particularly apt when reform and technology encourage faster decisions. Understanding those affected helps leaders recognise assumptions, identify concerns and make choices they can explain.

As October begins, solicitors have an opportunity to shape these debates through experience of how safeguards work in practice. Clear advice, careful supervision and constructive challenge can help clients pursue their ambitions with confidence. The profession’s contribution is strongest when it makes responsibility visible and gives those affected a meaningful way to hold decision-makers to account.