Your guide to the legal profession 2023/24
updated on 16 October 2023
In this guide we outline some of the key issues facing the UK legal profession, as well as headline-grabbing cases and mergers – are you in the know?
Lawyers interact with companies, national and local government, institutions and individuals in almost every area of life, so it’s no surprise that wider economic and political issues affecting their clients often have a knock-on effect on their work. Of these, eight key issues are currently pressurising the sector and driving profession-wide change in various ways. They can be divided into:
- external factors – climate change, legal aid, artificial intelligence and interest rates; and
- internal issues – diversity and inclusion in the profession, changes to training for solicitors, hybrid working and the war for talent.
Head to LCN’s Commercial awareness hub, sponsored by Mayer Brown International LLP, to boost your understanding of the factors impacting law firms and their clients.
Hybrid working and the war for talent
Legal developments – talking points
Climate change
Climate change has been a hot topic in law courts worldwide recently: 2,365 climate-related lawsuits have been filed around the world, with nearly 200 of them filed this year. In turn, companies have been releasing sustainability messages and signing pledges. But how can businesses actually help the planet?
With many people coming back into the office after the pandemic, the carbon impact of commuting and running offices has become more apparent. Firms like Weil, Gotshal and Manges LLP have enforced employees being in the office four days a week with the aim of improving office morale and productivity. As more law firms start to implement policies like this, a recent Law Society report found “growing evidence that working from home is not always as beneficial to the firm as it is to the individual”, explaining the desire to bring workers back to the office.
However, working from home is more flexible, environmentally friendly and has become popular among many employees since covid-19. Firms like Kingsley Napley LLP are saving £100,000 in energy costs by switching lights off and closing two and a half of the six floors in its office at 20 Bonhill Street on Fridays. Jemimah Cook, the firm’s HR director, says this choice is a “win-win for the environment and our cost base at the same time”. The ongoing debate between remote and in-person work demonstrates how businesses all over the country are trying to balance different priorities, while staying thoughtful of the environment.
For law firms, significant steps have been made to improve sustainability. For example, a recent legal charter set out eight core principals from reducing internal, external and global emissions to meaningful offsetting. The charter was launched just before climate action week, 24 June to 2 July 2023, and included firms such as Clyde & Co LLP and DLA Piper UK LLP.
But do net-zero pledges really help if a firm’s transactional work contradicts sustainability policies? According to The Times, the five magic circle firms were collectively responsible for about £285 billion worth of fossil fuel transactional work and five of the listed firms accounted for almost 20% of the total fossil fuel deals. This raises questions about what clauses should be included in net-zero agreements. If you’re working with high-emitting businesses, can you truly reach net zero?
Within this debate, lawyers are taking the work they do into their own hands. Jolyon Maugham KC, director of the Good Law Project, is one of many who’ve signed a declaration refusing to act for “those developing new fossil fuel projects or against those who protest to try to stop them”. Usually, refusing to act for a client goes against the role of a lawyer, appropriating the “role the system gives to judges or juries”. However, this declaration is “a professional conduct obligation”, which means lawyers will face disciplinary sanctions if they sign and breach it.
When it comes to firms' internal policies, it’s very difficult to turn down business from important companies. The Law Society has published guidance that suggests that law firms may be able to refuse work from businesses that contribute to climate change and go against net-zero targets. Whether firms will or can afford to do this is a different question.
The Chancery Lane Project offers a potential solution to the difficulties and discrepancies facing law firms when it comes to sustainability, with the project having drafted 10 climate clauses to use when creating commercial agreements. These clauses, covering topics such as deforestation and biodiversity, allow for lawyers to include sustainability from the start when giving advice to clients.
Speaking of being sustainably focused, Prime Minister Rishi Sunak has claimed that his new plan to drill for oil and gas (with 100 new licences) is more sustainable than importing oil. Inevitably, this is a point of contention for many. Jess Ralston, from the energy and climate intelligence unit, commented that this choice will greatly hurt Britain’s reputation in the climate emergency, especially if the government chooses to export the oil.
Controversially, Sunak has also announced a U-turn on previously agreed climate policies. His revised policies include:
- pushing back the ban on new petrol and diesel cars by five years to 2035;
- relaxing the phaseout target for installing new gas boilers in homes;
- scrapping new tough energy efficiency rules for landlords; and
- ruling out adopting new environmentally friendly policies (eg, meat tax, air travel tax, car sharing mandate and seven bin policy to encourage recycling).
Bank of England governor Mark Carney was one of those disappointed in this decision, believing that Sunak’s U-turns will cause global companies to hesitate to invest in the UK. It remains to be seen how these changes will affect the UK globally, and how in turn businesses, law firms and chambers will develop their sustainability policies to match the challenges of the next few years.
Legal aid
As over the past decade, legal aid remains an ongoing topic of debate with legal aid deserts, particularly in the North, continuing to rise. While access to support in some areas of law has improved with better routes into legal support for those who need it, others remain problematically undersupported and underfunded. These discrepancies in development pose the question, why are some areas deemed more important than others when it comes to funding?
Legal aid in the housing sector has developed significantly. A scheme launched on 1 August 2023 provided assistance to “38,000 people a year at risk of losing their home”. However, protestors have questioned why the criminal area of legal aid hasn’t received similar funding, as the government decided against recommendations to increase criminal defence solicitor rates by 15%. Lubna Shuja, former president of the Law Society, believes this decision is “unlawful and irrational” and will have “dire consequences for access to justice and the future of our criminal justice system”. The lack of funding, which is affecting criminal defence lawyers significantly more than prosecution, has meant that “over 1,000 duty solicitors have left since 2017”, as reported by the Law Society. Shuja comments: “A relatively small amount of money can make a huge difference to hard-working solicitors, who are the backbone of our criminal justice system.” Meanwhile, Nick Emmerson, the new Law Society president, has vowed to lead on the “response to the civil legal aid review” and continue the “fight to restore fair funding to the criminal legal aid system”.
Similarly, providers of immigration and asylum legal aid are calling for better wages and funding. They’ve written a joint letter to the lord chancellor, which was signed by 60% of the advice sector, outlining the need for systemic change. The letter called for a salary increase to £100 per hour or more in cases where significant expertise is needed, and for “the cost of accreditation for casework assistants and senior caseworkers [to be] funded in full by the Ministry of Justice”.
In terms of qualifying for aid, government changes have made steps forward. In the spring, a case raised questions about legal aid eligibility as a mother was denied legal aid to get custody of her child from an abusive ex-partner. She originally didn’t qualify because she didn’t live with the child, despite this being the reason she was seeking the legal aid in the first place. This ruling, which was eventually overturned, fits with findings that women find it harder to secure legal aid than men. The Gender Gaps in Access to Civil Legal Justice report found that: “85% of respondents said vulnerable women were unable to access civil legal aid, while 77% said a significant consequence of the legal aid changes was women reaching crisis point or problems escalating before they received any legal help or advice.”
On a more positive note, however, government changes to eligibility criteria mean that six million more people in England and Wales could qualify if they need help with a serious problem – such as facing prison or risking homelessness or abuse. It’s also easier now to find out whether you qualify with a new eligibility tool.
These steps forward instil some hope for the future, but there remain calls for development to be rolled out across all areas.
AI
AI is changing the way we work in both an educational and professional setting, whether you’re excited or scared by the new technology. Law schools across the country have found that students are using ChatGPT in the classroom, which has raised questions about how the software is impacting work and learning. Andres Guadamuz, a reader in intellectual property at the University of Sussex, says that he can now tell whether an article is written by ChatGPT and aims to demonstrate the software’s limitations to students. Meanwhile, The University of Law is asking students to “confirm their work is not derived from AI generative systems” and other universities are working on creating policies in relation to students’ use of the software.
The fast-evolving technology is also changing the way that people are applying to jobs, with AI able to write specific applications based on job descriptions. But what do employers make of this change? Is it inventive or undermining the whole application process? Matt Jones, from talent and acquisition company Cielo, believes that the widespread use of AI brings into question the “relevance of reviewing CVs, cover letters and applications, particularly at the early career stage”.
As well as applications, there’s also the potential for AI to take on tasks in the workplace. While it’s far from replacing qualified lawyers, firms are trying to work out how the technology can be used to benefit practice by taking on repetitive admin tasks usually undertaken by junior staff, such as trainee solicitors. Both Allen & Overy LLP and Macfarlanes LLP use AI chatbox HarveyAI to automate simple tasks, such as reviewing, analysing and summarising documents. The tool was founded at the start of 2022, has received a $5 million investment from the OpenAI startup fund and has been tested and introduced by law firms. Winston Weinberg, HarveyAI’s co-founder and president, was “delighted to partner with Macfarlanes, a firm that shares our vision of using generative AI to empower lawyers and enhance legal services”.
Moving into the wild world of AI, copyrights and IP, there are concerns that AI could replace human workers by replicating creativity. Artist Kelly McKernan was shocked to discover AI could be used to recreate her artwork: “If someone can type my name [into an AI tool] to make a book cover and not hire me, that affects my career and so many other people." In response to such worries, an artist from Zandvoort created the European Guild for Artificial Intelligence Regulation with the “aim… to create legislation and regulation to protect copyright holders and artists from predatory AI companies”. The organisation has created a manifesto with suggested ways to regulate AI, which has been signed by 8,371 people.
Meanwhile, Arty Rajendra, an IP lawyer at Osborne Clarke LLP, says: "AI throws up lots of intellectual property queries… because machines are trained on a lot of data and information that's protected by intellectual property.” Developments in the AI and IP area are ongoing, and it’s more important than ever to keep up with the latest cases and legislation developments.
In terms of legislation to regulate the use of AI, an international summit is set to take place in the UK in November to discuss creating such legislation (more on this later). The summit will be an important point of discussion following a year where AI has proved an exciting development for some and a cause of immense anxiety for others. The new technology is an important issue to keep up to date with, as it’s set to affect students through study, job applications and employment.
Interest rates
Rising interest rates has been an ongoing concern this year, but is this good or bad news for law firms? Well, the banking sector has been struggling due to rising inflation rates, which could leave some firms at risk according to Lawrence White, the Robert Kavesh professor of economics at New York University’s Stern School of Business. In contrast, as the banking sector struggles, law firms with a banking practice could expand as banking mergers provide more legal work. Additionally, larger firms are facing a decrease in demand by 1.5% while mid-size firms have grown by 1.8%, the reverse of 2021 data.
How a firm has been affected also depends on its practice areas. Thomson Reuters reports that “transactional demand at the largest law firms was down nearly 5% over the past year, mostly due to contraction in mergers and acquisitions and real estate work”. The demand in these areas was relatively consistent a year ago and has been directly affected by interest rate increases. For example, in the first quarter of 2023, M&A deals made $580 billion, a 44% decrease from 2022’s first quarter. Conversely, litigation, labour and employment, and bankruptcy (which are all counter-cyclical practices) have been positively affected by inflation.
Find out more about law firm growth in LawCareers.Net’s News.
Diversity and inclusion
Looking inwards, the legal profession is still nowhere near as diverse or as accessible as it should be, although important progress has been (and is being) made.
Ethnicity
Of all solicitors in England and Wales, 12% are Asian, 3% are from mixed/multiple ethnic groups, 3% are Black and 1% are from other ethnic backgrounds, according to the Solicitors Regulation Authority’s (SRA) latest data. When taking into account seniority, 12% of partners are Asian (compared to 12% of solicitors), 3% of partners are Black (compared to 3% of solicitors), 2% of partners are from mixed/multiple ethnic backgrounds (compared to 3% of solicitors) and 1% of partners are from other ethnic groups (compared to 1% of solicitors). At firms with 50 or more partners, only 7% of partners are from a Black, Asian and minority ethnic background.
Meanwhile at the Bar, just over 16% of barristers and only 10.5% (up from 10.1%) of King’s Counsel (KC) are from ethnic minority backgrounds, according to the Bar Standards Board’s (BSB) latest report, with ethic minority candidates making up 22.7% (up from 20.5%) of pupils. The report states that there’s also a “disparity in the proportion of all non-KCs from Black/Black British backgrounds compared to the proportion of all KCs from the same background, with there being fewer Black/Black British KCs than would be expected, given the number of Black/Black British barristers at the Bar overall. The disparity is particularly high for those of Black/Black British – African ethnic backgrounds”.
In addition, a Bar Council report published in 2021 highlights that on average Black women barristers earn around £19,000 less per annum than their white male counterparts, and Black male barrister salaries are more than £15,000 less than the average white junior barrister. Despite petitions calling for mandatory ethnicity pay gap reporting, the UK’s Commission on Race and Ethnic Disparities is yet to make this a legal requirement.
Gender
When looking at sex, women make up just over half of all practising solicitors in law firms and 61% of solicitors overall, but only 35% of partners in private practice. According to the Law Society’s most recent analysis of some of the largest 50 UK law firms for 2021/22, the median gender pay gap was 28% – this statistic, for most firms, excludes partner pay. On this issue, Shuja (former president of the Law Society) said: “Women’s barriers to progression are further compounded by traditional male-oriented promotion structures, a lack of development opportunities due to the unfair allocation of work and the lack of support around maternity leave, return to work, flexible working and shared parental leave.”
Shuja has called for members of the Law Society of England and Wales to “commit” to the Law Society’s Women in Law Pledge, which includes “having a dedicated member of the senior leadership team accountable for gender diversity and inclusion, setting realistic but ambitious gender objectives, and committing to dealing with sexual harassment, workplace culture and bias”.
According to the BSB’s Diversity at the Bar report, as of December 2022, women made up 39.7% of the Bar, with the number of female KCs increasing year on year from 18.1% to 19.2%. At pupillage level, 59.9% of pupils were women and 40.1% were men.
Another issue facing women in law, is unequal work allocation. A survey by the Next 100 Years project found that just 54% of its 200 respondents were confident that work was distributed fairly between men and women, with more than one-third of respondents believing that working from home could hamper career progression. Founder of Next 100 Years Dana Denis-Smith described elements of the findings as “worrying”, given that “many women feel that more flexible working patterns limit their opportunities and that as a result, they may be missing out on the ‘best’ work”.
Disability
Disability is an area that’s often overlooked when considering the diversity and inclusion of a workplace. So much so that the disability employment gap in the UK is worsening, sitting at its widest point since 2018. According to government stats, between 2020 and 2021, more disabled workers left work (420,000) than started work (350,000); and the disability employment rate was 52.6% in July to September 2022, compared to 82.5% for non-disabled people.
Refocusing on the legal profession itself, the number of lawyers who reported a disability is only 5%; this is compared to 14% of the UK workforce. Just 4% of partners said they have a disability. In firms with 10 to 50 partners, 6% of lawyers reported a disability, while firms with 50+ partners have only 4% of lawyers who’ve reported a disability.
Meanwhile, at the Bar, the BSB reported a 3.8% increase from December 2021 to December 2022 (12.5%) of pupils who have a disability. Of those who provided information for this report, 7.3% said they had a disability. These figures demonstrate just how much more work the profession still needs to do to ensure that law firms and chambers are inclusive and accessible for disabled candidates.
Sexual orientation and gender identity
Just 3.5% of lawyers identify as lesbian, gay or bisexual – 2.5% identify as lesbian or gay, and 1% are bisexual. This figure drops to 2.3% in law firms with one partner, while at larger firms with 10 to 50 partners, the figure is slightly higher at 4.3%. Meanwhile, 2.8% of partners identify as lesbian, gay or bisexual and 8.2% said they’d prefer not to declare their sexual orientation.
The SRA also highlighted that 0.9% of solicitors reported that they had a different gender identity to the one assigned at birth – in 2019, this stat was 1.9%. In firms with 10 to 50 partners, 2.4% said they had a gender identity different from their sex registered at birth.
Meanwhile, while the response rate for the gender identity and sexual orientation categories in the BSB report increased marginally from last year, the response rate for gender identity was still only 48.4%, and for sex it was 27.9% compared to 98.1% for gender. The latest report demonstrates that, excluding those who didn’t provide information, 10.9% (down from 11.5% last year) of pupils, 6.9% (down from 7.3%) of non-KC barristers and 5.4% (down from 5.7%) of KCs identified as either bisexual, gay, lesbian or other (not including heterosexual).
Social mobility
Another important area of diversity and inclusion is social mobility. With ‘parental occupation’ identified as the most reliable indicator of socioeconomic status, the SRA’s diversity stats in this regard are based on parental occupation divided into three categories: professional (or higher socioeconomic background); intermediate; and working class (or lower socioeconomic background).
Nearly 60% of lawyers are from a professional background, 12% from an intermediate background and 17% from a lower socioeconomic background.
When looking at school attended, 22% of lawyers reported having attended an independent/fee-paying school, while 63% attended a state school and 8% attended schools outside the UK.
At the Bar, the picture isn’t much better with the data highlighting that a “disproportionately high” percentage of barristers reported attending a UK independent school between the ages of 11 to 18. Nearly 19.5% of barristers (including non-respondents) attended an independent school. As of December 2022 (and when excluding non-responses), just 0.5% of the Bar hadn’t been to university and 42.3% were the first generation to go to university.
Looking forward
As law firms and chambers continue to put in work to improve diversity and inclusion at all levels, it’s clear there’s so much more work to do across all strands. As well as the ones mentioned above, it’s essential that work is also underway to improve the representation of lawyers from different religious backgrounds, those with caring responsibilities and those who are neurodivergent.
Diversity and inclusion is a fundamental issue that must be addressed if the profession is to attract and retain the best talent and offer the best services. Speaking on the issue, Shuja has called for firms to collect “additional information on disability, ethnicity, and LGBTQ+ pay gaps to provide a more comprehensive view of their organisation and allow them to address the intersectional inequalities faced by their staff”.
You can head to LawCareers.Net’s Diversity hub, sponsored by Gowling WLG (UK) LLP, for regular updates to keep you in the know regarding what law firms, chambers and legal education providers are doing to remove existing (often invisible) barriers and work towards a more diverse and inclusive profession.
Changes to solicitor training
The Solicitors Qualifying Exam (SQE) was introduced in September 2021 and has changed the way that aspiring solicitors will qualify. Many firms have been grappling with the best way to adopt the SQE into their existing training processes: some have maintained the traditional training contract and have incorporated the SQE within this, while others have introduced new programmes (ie, the solicitor graduate apprenticeship). Not all law firms have taken the same approach to the SQE but many of the larger firms have opted to continue training their future lawyers, which means any future lawyers at these firms will be expected to complete their period of training (ie, the two years’ qualifying work experience (QWE)) with their chosen firm.
This leads on to another point of contention with the SQE – although the new centralised assessments were designed to offer greater flexibility in terms of training, meaning aspiring lawyers have the ability to build up their own QWE (outside of a training contract/formalised training programme), law firms offering training contracts aren’t obliged to accept any previous QWE from applicants.
It's really important that you speak to law firms to find out how they're adopting the SQE and what’s expected of you should you apply.
Hybrid working and the war for talent
Although we set out to avoid mentioning covid-19 in this piece, it somehow always manages to find its way back in – three years later and its impact on the working world continues. This time, it’s in light of the action many law firms are taking to bring their employees back to the physical office following a period of full-time working from home and a more flexible approach as we eased out of the last lockdown.
Collaboration and reinvigorating workplace culture are among a few of the reasons cited for the return to office work. Meanwhile, the demand for some law firms has come as clients move back to full-time office work. In April 2023, JP Morgan Chase announced that its staff would be returning to the office five days a week with concerns that clients will “eventually expect their lawyers” to follow suit. Vinson & Elkins RLLP and Weil, Gotshal & Manges LLP both recently introduced the implementation of new policies requesting its employees to work from their offices for at least four days each week. These firms join the likes of Ropes & Gray International LLP and Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom (UK) LLP in encouraging workers back into the office.
Concerns about productivity became a talking point over the past couple of years, which potentially contributed to firms’ desires to bring people back to working in the office; however, it’s vital that law firms don’t lose sight of that fact that for many, working from home boosts productivity as it removes barriers to working (eg, office noise). As issues surrounding presenteeism become more prominent, particularly in the legal profession, firms must find or develop tailored solutions to the remote working debate that suits their business needs, but this also heavily involves supporting employees from various backgrounds to maintain an inclusive workplace environment. The policies that firms implement should consider the individual employee needs, for example parents and neurodivergent people, to ensure that workplace inclusivity is maintained.
Bruce Daisley, a UK-based workplace consultant, says: “Flexibility might not seem like a diversity and inclusion issue, but it absolutely is.” Attendance policies can be detrimental for many as employees are forced to “confront logistical and emotional hurdles that can add a cascade of struggles to their already complex lives”, Daisley adds.
Meanwhile, as firms grapple with hybrid working policies and reintroducing physical office hours for existing employees, the challenge to attract and retain future talent has also been at the forefront. In May 2023, newly qualified (NQs) solicitors at Linklaters LLP and Allen & Overy LLP saw their pay bumped from £107,500 to £125,000 – a 16% hike to match the pay of NQs at Clifford Chance and Freshfields Bruckhaus Deringer LLP.
However, Claire McCartney, CIPD’s senior policy adviser, highlighted the challenges businesses might face in attracting “talent if they want people in the office full time, five days a week” because everyone has “different expectations around workplace flexibility”. With generation Z lawyers now prioritising work/life balance over the lure of the largest global law firms, it suggests there’s more to qualifying than just the pay check these days. So, could the lure of high-paying positions, for some, be outweighed by companies offering more flexible working policies?
Mergers
In 2022, UK law firm mergers rose by nearly a quarter from 99 in 2021 (a 10-year low) to 122 in 2022, new research from accountancy firm Hazlewoods finds. Following what has been described as “two sluggish years”, law firm M&A deals are back on the rise as firms with expansion plans feel more confident doing so in the current market.
Some recent notable mergers include:
- Magic circle law firm Allen & Overy LLP and New York-based Shearman & Sterling LLP have agreed to merge to create a global powerhouse after 99% of partners at the firms voted in favour of the deal. The merged firm will generate around £2.7 billion in combined revenue.
- Earlier this year, Birketts LLP completed its planned merger with Batchelors Solicitors, following the firm’s consistent year-on-year growth over the past four years. The merger saw Birketts take over Batchelors’ Kent and London-based offices, strengthening its offering in these areas.
- At the very start of 2023, Mishcon de Reya LLP and Taylor Vinters LLP finalised their merger, having first announced it in September 2021. More than 200 staff joined Mishcon de Reya as a result of the merger, which was described as a “strategic combination”.
Legal developments – talking points
Worker strikes and anti-strike law
We’ve been no stranger to workforces striking this year – from NHS walkouts to teacher, tube and rail strikes, there have been numerous disruptions across various industries as workers fight for better pay and conditions, among other things. This looks set to continue with rail workers, junior doctors and teachers all striking into the autumn.
In terms of legal developments, the UK government’s controversial anti-strike law received royal assent in July 2023 amid the ongoing strikes. The law requires employers in the public sector to issue a ‘work notice’ ahead of industrial action in which they can specify which staff are required to provide “minimum service levels”. Since then, strikes have continued and the government’s new law has faced backlash. In fact, just recently during the Trades Union Congress’ (TUC) meeting in Liverpool it was agreed among delegates that there’s “no choice but to build mass opposition to the minimum service levels laws, up to and including a strategy of non-compliance and non-cooperation to make them unworkable, including industrial action”.
The TUC’s General Secretary Paul Nowak made it clear that the TUC wasn’t suggesting that workers don’t comply with the law because this could lead to legal action, but instead that options for non-compliance and resistance to the law will be investigated. Speaking to the Guardian, Nowak explained that the plan is to “explore every avenue we can to defeat this legislation”. This statement follows a complaint the TUC made about the law to the International Labour Organization (the UN workers’ rights watchdog), alleging that the laws are “unworkable, undemocratic and almost certainly in breach of international law”.
Read our Wrestle with PESTLE for an analysis of the strike action to get you thinking commercially about this issue.
As strikes continue and the TUC looks for ways to resist the anti-strike law, this is a legal development that’s well worth keeping an eye on.
Conversion therapy ban and new Tory proposals
Back in 2018, Theresa May promised to ban conversion therapy aimed at changing people’s sexual orientation or gender identity. Five years later, and no progress made, it’s been reported that Sunak is expected to halt the long-awaited plans with ministers claiming such a move has proven to be “problematic or ineffective” in other countries.
Following these reports, Dehenna Davison, Conservative MP for Bishop Auckland has called for the government to follow through with its promise during a speech at a Pride reception at the Conservative Party conference, which was hosted by LGBT+ Conservatives and LGBT+ charity Stonewall. Davison called for conference attendees to be “noisy”, adding: “Make it known to your Members of Parliament, to your counsellors, and indeed members of the government that this is something we absolutely need to see followed through.”
In addition, Health Secretary Steve Barclay recently announced a potential change to current NHS guidance that would see trans people banned from single-sex hospital wards. Barclay’s proposal and Sunak’s “damaging” and “disappointing” comments, in which he stated that “a man is a man and a woman is a woman”, have been criticised by MPs, charities, activists and the LGBTQ+ community. Barclay claims the update is to ensure that the “dignity, safety and privacy” of all patients is respected but the proposal has received backlash from moderate Conservative Party MPs, with Jamie Wallis calling for the party to “solve problems that actually exist” and Robin White, discrimination barrister, calling the plans “unlawful”.
Others have suggested Sunak’s comments and the focus of the conference are a “distraction” amid climbing interest rates and serious issues within the NHS. At the same conference, Home Secretary Suella Braverman also announced a lifetime ban on sex offenders changing their gender or name.
Despite the numerous calls for the conversion therapy ban and the backlash towards the latest government proposals regarding gender and trans rights, it’s unclear what the Conservative government’s next move will be.
For insights into queer history through legislation, read this LCN Says.
AI regulations
AI is developing at an insurmountable pace, with governments across the world grappling with the best ways to regulate the use of the technology. It’s an ever-developing area that requires a constant finger on the pulse for those involved, whether that’s lawyers using AI for work or dealing with issues regarding the use of AI in cases, politicians coming up with new laws to govern its use, teachers monitoring its use in the classroom, or you – the future of the legal profession.
We’ve already covered quite a bit about the growing use of AI in law firms but it’s also important to consider the different ways that governments are trying to regulate it.
As mentioned, world leaders are due to meet on 1 and 2 November for a summit to discuss the safe use of AI through “international coordination action” and ultimately build an international consensus on its future. The government has announced that the summit will focus on ‘frontier AI’, but there have been calls for the scope to be broader than this with the Ada Lovelace Institute saying the “narrow focus on ‘frontier AI’ risks overlooking many other important AI harms, challenges and solutions”.
It’s been confirmed that the event’s first edition will look at two specific risks associated with AI: misuse and loss of control. The UK government also confirmed that prior to the summit four workshops will take place in partnership with four UK-based non-profits, including the British Academy and The Alan Turing Institute, which’ll feed “directly into the summit planning”. It’s been predicted by Keegan McBride, a lecturer in AI, government and policy at the Oxford Internet Institute, that the safety summit “is unlikely to achieve a lasting consensus on AI regulation”.
Meanwhile, a UK AI taskforce has already been developed to determine how to make the most of AI and reduce the risks associated with the technology, and £900 million of public money is to be invested into making the UK a strong, well-regulated hub for AI usage. A Commons Technology Committee report highlighted 12 challenges that’ll need to be addressed by the UK government, including those relating to bias, privacy, employment and copyrighted material.
Read more about AI in the legal profession with this Commercial Question from Shoosmiths: ‘Use of AI in the legal industry: should we, shouldn’t we?’.
There have been numerous calls for regulation, with Spotify’s Daniel Ek urging the UK government to make use of its position outside of the EU to develop new laws. Speaking to the Financial Times, Ek highlighted the UK’s ability to be “nimble right now and show leadership” amid concerns over alleged dominance from big tech companies with the CEO of OpenAI (the creator of ChatGPT) raising concerns about the “under-regulation” of AI.
As AI continues to develop at an incredibly fast rate, any regulation created will need to be closely monitored and updated to ensure it doesn’t quickly become outdated. Watch this space!
Major cases
Here’s a small sample of important and fascinating cases that’ve been in the news over the past year. Use them as a starting point for your own research and don’t forget to follow the stories you’re interested in as they develop.
easyJet v Easy Life
Pop band Easy Life has flown too close to the sun, causing airline easyJet to sue the group over its name. Fans have expressed anger and frustration online after the band announced its final show with the name Easy Life on 12 October 2023. However, was the claim inevitable or is the band’s marketing strategy to blame for catching easyJet’s attention?
easyGroup, the owner of easyJet-affiliated brands, said it would be “unfair” to allow the group to use the term ‘easy’ without paying for royalties. The band’s tour poster, which featured a picture of an airplane with the same orange paint as easyJet and the band’s name in place of the ‘easyJet’ logo, was a major reason that easyGroup sought action. At the High Court, easyGroup also noted that the band made t-shirts with similar branding to easyJet.
easyGroup’s legal representation claimed: "By wrongly creating a link with the claimant, the defendant benefits from an association with that positive view and vast brand recognition, regardless of whether the link was intended to be provocative or humorous.”
Previously, easyJet has also taken action against Netflix comedy Easy and a restaurant named Easycurry, which changed its name following the threat of legal action.
While easyJet believes it’s unfair for the band to ride on the coattails of its strong brand presence, Easy Life has expressed frustration online. The band believes that its name doesn’t affect the airline’s business and shared on Instagram that they find the “whole situation hilarious”, but feel “virtually powerless against such a massive corporation”. The band noted that they’re not a “brand thief” as they’ve existed as a band for several years, describing it as a “David vs Goliath” situation.
Manchester City v the Premier League
In February, Manchester City Football Club hit the headlines after the Premier League charged the club with over 100 breaches of Financial Fair Play (FFP) rules from 2009 to 2018. FFP regulations aim to ensure clubs spend what they earn, but it was alleged that Manchester City didn’t provide accurate financial information. The club’s manager, Pep Guardiola, is calling for judges to make a decision as soon as possible: “We would love a [decision] tomorrow… Hopefully they are not so busy and the judges can see both sides and decide what is the best because in the end I know fairly that what we won we won on the pitch.”
However, The Independent has predicted that a speedy conclusion is unlikely, estimating that the investigation could go on for up to four years. The club allegedly broke FFP rules over the course of nine seasons, including paying a manager much more than stated over a four-year contract. Other clubs are “furious” about the length of proceedings as they want Manchester City to be punished swiftly and removed as a rival.
This isn’t the first time the club has faced action over FFP. In 2020 the Union of European Football Associations (UEFA) fined the club €30 million (£26.8 million) and banned them for two seasons, but these charges were later reduced as the offences took place too long ago. However, the Premier League rules don’t include a time limit, so the same can’t happen in this case. According to Sky Sports, there’s a possibility of point deduction, or even expulsion in extreme cases, should clubs be convicted by the Premier League.
Sony
Sony is facing claims that it overcharged nine million consumers, in a case brought by Alex Neill, consumer rights champion, and supported by Milberg LLP.
The multinational company allegedly charged a 30% commission on each digital game purchased through the Playstation store. Neill said: "With this legal action I am standing up for the millions of UK people who have been unwittingly overcharged. We believe Sony has abused its position and ripped off its customers.”
PlayStation users can potentially make a claim against Sony if they’re UK based and have owned a console since 19 August 2016, purchased digital PlayStation games or made in-game purchases via the PlayStation store.
Neill believes this case is of particular importance due to the large number of people who rely on gaming for community and connection. She previously worked to introduce the Consumer Rights Act 2015, which made this case possible. Facing off against such a large company is a daunting and difficult task, but one Neill believes is important to undertake. Neill adds: "We believe we've got a really strong case, or else we wouldn't be doing this.”
Ellie Nicholl is content & engagement coordinator and Olivia Partridge is content manager at LawCareers.Net.
