Category: Metro

Reform UK candidate exposed for offensive posts by political X account

City law firm CMS says it has taken “prompt and decisive action” against one of its wellbeing ambassadors after a political account on X exposed several of his anti-Islam and anti-trans social media posts.

In a since deleted tweet, Dan Cooper, an HR business partner and wellbeing ambassador at CMS, told his followers last month: “I hate Islam. It’s a 7th century barbaric cult. I don’t fear it, I loath it.”

In furthers posts, also since deleted, Cooper said, “If you are over 18 and think you are transgender then you have a mental illness” and suggested people who destroyed Pride flags “should be applauded and given a free Happy Meal.”

Legal Cheek understands Cooper has now left the firm.

Dan Cooper @Danable64 is the Reform UK candidate for Boston Coastal in Lincolnshire. Yes @ticerichard‘s patch.

He’s Senior HR Business Partner for @CMS_law, a law firm.

On his LinkedIn he describes himself as a Wellness Ambassador. That’s quite woke.

We’re not sure how he… pic.twitter.com/NwWsHHAsJU

— Reform Party UK Exposed (@reformexposed) March 5, 2025

Cooper has since deactivated his account on X. However, before doing so, his posts were screenshotted and shared by the account ‘Reform Party UK Exposed’. Some of the posts are also available on webpage capture service archive.today.

As a HR Partner for CMS, Dan Cooper, Reform UK’s candidate for Boston Coastal has some strong views on diversity (especially Muslims) and LGBT people. pic.twitter.com/wSxC2tl9Sv

— Reform Party UK Exposed (@reformexposed) March 5, 2025

This account appears to have targeted Cooper after he announced earlier this month that he would be standing for Reform UK in the Boston Coastal division of Lincolnshire County Council this May. It remains unclear whether he is still a candidate. Reform UK has been approached for comment.

Cooper’s LinkedIn profile — which has been deleted overnight — described him as an “International Senior HR Business Partner” at CMS, followed by the disclaimer, “All views expressed are my own”. He was also listed as a filmmaker and author of children’s books. He also referred to himself as a “wellbeing ambassador,” though this seems to have been removed before his account was deleted, yet it still appears in a Google search.

A CMS spokesperson told Legal Cheek:

We took prompt and decisive action as soon as we learnt about the nature of the individual’s offensive remarks on social media. The views expressed on their personal social media accounts are their own and do not represent those of the firm. At CMS we are committed to creating an inclusive environment for all our colleagues and we will be supporting all the individuals affected by this.

Cooper didn’t respond to our requests for comment.

Increases track inflation and cover additional costs of delivering exams in Welsh

The Solicitors Regulation Authority (SRA) have announced a third fee increase for the Solicitors Qualifying Examination (SQE), to cover inflation and translating the exams into Welsh.

The SRA has confirmed that from September 2025, SQE fees will rise to £1,934 for SQE1 and £2,974 for SQE2, totalling £4,908.

This amounts to a total increase of 2.3%, which the regulator says aligns with its “contractual agreements” with SQE exam provider Kaplan.

This marks the third increase in SQE fees, following a significant 11% rise in July 2023. While partly reflecting inflation, this latest hike also includes a “small additional uplift” to cover the costs of translating the SQE into Welsh, similar to the reason given for the 5% increase in April 2024.

Alongside the fee increase, the SRA has published Kaplan’s annual performance report, which includes measures to prevent future “rounding” errors. This follows issues with the January 2024 SQE1 results, where some candidates were mistakenly told they had failed, leading to firms revoking training contracts.

The report confirms that SQE2 pass rates are higher than those for SQE1. Meanwhile, outgoing SRA Chief Executive Paul Philip expressed his “delight” that pass rates for solicitor apprenticeships were typically higher than for the rest of the cohort, highlighting “real opportunities for social mobility”.

Philip said: “The latest reports again confirm that the SQE is a robust, fair, and valid assessment. Increased numbers of candidates have been assessed. Kaplan has responded to candidate feedback, including by transforming the booking process”

Separately, the SRA have announced a £360,000 fund for providers to support disadvantaged students afford the SQE and “provide a boost for organisations already working hard to improve access to the profession”. The funds come from penalties imposed on Kaplan for issues with SQE assessment delivery.

Approximately 190 candidates from disadvantaged backgrounds are expected to benefit from the fund. As many students know, the SQE comes with significant costs, excluding expenses for study materials and preparation courses, which can exceed £10,000.

Organisations interested in the fund are directed to find details here with a Wednesday 30 April deadline. The fund should cover the SQE1 entry fees, and organisations will need to demonstrate how their schemes support committed, self-funding aspiring solicitors who face significant barriers to qualification. Dividing the £360k between 190, though, amounts to £1,895 — just shy of fees with this SQE1 price increase.

As legal challenges mount, US President escalates his attack on law firms

In just the first seven weeks of his presidency, the Trump Administration faced an astonishing 119 legal challenges — an average of two per day, according to data from Just Security, a journal of the Reiss Center on Law and Security at NYU School of Law, which is tracking the litigation.

Since coming to office, President Trump has ordered a swathe of headline-grabbing actions, such as revoking birth right citizenship for children of undocumented immigrants, dismantling the foreign assistance agency, USAID, renaming the Gulf of Mexico, and banning diversity and inclusion initiatives anywhere in government.

Now these unprecedented executive orders are being legally challenged — almost as quickly as they are being issued – by advocacy groups, associations, trades union and other parties. A number of courts across the states are having to grapple with the legality of Trump’s orders: whether they go beyond what the statutes say, whether they may be unconstitutional. Though previous administrations have also seen their orders challenged in the courts, the extent of the current litigation matches the radical nature of Trump’s orders.

Many of these cases will — eventually — be decided against the Administration and will reverse the executive orders, say experts. Professor Steve Vladeck is the author of the successful One First newsletter as well as a law professor at Georgetown University Law Center in Washington, DC. He tells Legal Cheek:

“Executive power doesn’t override statute and many of the areas that Trump is cutting through have statutory rules.”

But even if he loses in court, Trump is: “Already winning,” says Vladeck. “Tens of thousands of employees have been sent home, organisations have lost their funding, we have witnessed the chilling effect on DEI. So the orders will get reversed in two or three years, but in the meantime, he has created chaos.”

The question that has been swirling around legal circles is: when a court finds against Trump, would he ever dare to disobey? Certainly, the Administration gives the impression that it would. In one case recently, where a judge temporarily blocked the actions of the Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE), Vice-president, JD Vance, bit back on X/Twitter: “Judges aren’t allowed to control the executive’s legitimate power.”

But Vance, who attended, super-prestigious Yale Law School (which he described as “nerd Hollywood” in his infamous book, Hillbilly Elegy), presumably knows this is disingenuous. Judges may not control the executive but they do get to determine what is a legitimate power and what isn’t and that could amount to the same thing.

Vladeck’s hunch is Trump wouldn’t directly flout a ruling: “At some point, when he needs the budget to get through, the President will have to rely on Congressional Republicans to make that happen. I sense that disobeying a court order would be a red line for them. So Trump won’t want to test that.”

Trump appears to have an uneasy relationship with the courts and lawyers right now. At the same time as these challenges are bubbling up in various states, he has taken aggressive steps against law firms. He has issued executive orders directly against two of the US’s largest outfits which have been involved in matters in opposition to Trump.

In February, an order came out against Covington & Burling suspending security clearance for lawyers at the firm (a lawyer there had acted pro bono in the former criminal cases against Trump) and, just last week, Trump issued an even wider order against Perkins Coie for its “dishonest and dangerous activity” that has “affected the country for decades” as the order put it (the firm at one point represented Trump’s former opponent, Hillary Clinton.)

There’s more. In the same order against Perkins Coie, the Administration has extended the clampdown on diversity and inclusion initiatives to law firms as reported in Legal Cheek this week. And the penalties are not trivial: the firms risk the termination of government contracts.

Law firms may experience the chilling effect in other ways, such as being reluctant to hire former government lawyers who have been ousted by the Administration (as part of the dramatic cull in personnel in recent weeks) over concerns that the firms will be tainted by association. Vladeck is optimistic about this, however: “Some firms may want to avoid hiring anyone who has spoken out. But it’s possible that for other firms it may be a win!”

What is more troubling, Vladeck argues, is the damage to the reputation of the civil service in the eyes of younger lawyers and students: “For as long as we have had a civil service, its aim has been non-partisan. And that feels under threat now. Will you see good people go into government in the future given what’s just happened?”

Very (very!) strong financials

Latham & Watkins has joined Kirkland & Ellis in the $7 billion revenue club after posting a record-breaking financial performance for 2024.

The US firm saw its revenue surge 23% to $7 billion (£5.4 billion), while profit per equity partner (PEP) jumped 29% to an eye-watering $7.1 million (£5.4 million). That leap — representing a $1.3 billion year-on-year increase in revenue — was driven not by a significant increase in lawyer headcount, which rose just 4% to just under 4,000, but by a sharp 18% rise in revenue per lawyer to just under $2 million.

Latham has become only the second law firm to surpass the $7 billion revenue mark, following closely behind its major US rival, Kirkland & Ellis, which reached $7.21 billion in 2023. Kirkland, the world’s largest law firm by revenue, is now expected to approach $9 billion when it reports its 2024 figures — a staggering sum that would further cement its dominance. Last year, the firm’s profit per equity partner (PEP) stood at $7.96 million (£6.15 million) and could exceed $10 million in the latest round.

The contrast between US firms and the UK’s Magic Circle continues to widen. While full-year results for 2024 have yet to be released, the top UK firms remain well behind their US counterparts.

Latham’s London office, its largest outside the US, played a significant role in the firm’s growth. Turnover in the City rose 25% to $850 million (£657 million), outpacing the growth seen across the wider firm. Latham has expanded its London partner count by 50% over the past five years to 140, although it did lose 13 partners in 2024.

£360k accumulated so far

The Solicitors Regulation Authority (SRA) has established a new six-figure fund to support disadvantaged aspiring lawyers through the SQE, using financial penalties it has imposed on the organisation responsible for running the assessments.

The regulator says the fund of around £360,000 has accumulated since the SQE first launched and is generated by payments from Kaplan, the SQE provider, “in line with contractual arrangements linked to its performance”.

The pot of cash, dubbed the SQE Access and Reinvestment Fund, will be available to organisations with “a track record of supporting aspiring solicitors”. Successful applicants will use their allocation to cover the SQE entry fees for the candidates they choose to support.

Kaplan has faced criticism for its handling of the SQE assessments, particularly after it was revealed in April last year that 175 students were mistakenly informed they had failed parts of their exams.

Paul Philip, SRA chief executive, said:

“The fund will provide a boost for organisations already working hard to improve access to the profession. The fund should cover the SQE1 entry fees for around 190 candidates from disadvantaged backgrounds. We do not want to see talented individuals being held back by financial constraints and other personal challenges. A diverse profession that can attract the best people and represents the society it serves, is a stronger profession. We look forward to receiving applications and to supporting established schemes.”

Organisations seeking a slice of the funding will need to demonstrate how their schemes support committed, self-funding aspiring solicitors who face significant barriers to qualify as a solicitor, such as a disability, a background in a cared for setting, or family estrangement.