Paradise News

Tag: United Kingdom

  • Appeal launched to support stranded trainees following RBG collapse

    Seven seek support

    The chair of the City of London Law Society (CLLS) has appealed to law firms and lawyers across the country to help seven aspiring solicitors left in limbo following the collapse of formerly listed law firm RBG Holdings.

    Passmore, a former partner at Simmons & Simmons, shared that a trainee approached him seeking a new firm after the high-profile winding down of RBG. At the same time, the trainee explained they were also reaching out on behalf of six future trainees, set to start in 2025 and 2026, who are now without a training spot.

    RGB owned two law firms, Rosenblatt and Memery Crystal. The former was mostly bought out, while the latter was wound down, with its partners moving to other firms.

    Addressing his LinkedIn connections, Passmore said:

    “These people are inevitably worried about rebuilding their futures in this hugely competitive market. I can remember the thrill of getting that magic letter telling me I had secured my articles/training contract, but I cannot imagine what it must be like to have that opportunity taken away before it has even begun.”

    “So dare I ask: are there any law firms out there — whether or not CLLS members — who might just somehow be able to look to see if you can do something to help?” he continues. “Please let me know at the CLLS if you think you can.”

    The 2025 Legal Cheek Firms Most List

    In addition to seeking new homes for the trainees, Passmore also appeared to question whether others could be doing more. “It surprises me that our regulators don’t get involved in these situations to pressure the businesses concerned to do more,” he wrote in the comments section below his original post.

    This point was echoed by former Clifford Chance managing partner and SRA board member, Tony Williams. “One downside of the LLP and ABS is that no lawyer in the business feels that they have a personal responsibility to sort their staff out,” he responded.

    Law firms able to offer assistance to trainees are encouraged to contact the CLLS directly.

    The post Appeal launched to support stranded trainees following RBG collapse appeared first on Legal Cheek.

    Source: Legal Cheek

  • ‘Give them some leeway’: Lawfluencer urges firms to stand by trainees who fail SQE

    Appeal follows latest exam results

    A popular lawfluencer has urged law firms to reconsider before severing ties with future trainees who fail the SQE, highlighting ongoing “glitches” in the new qualification process and urging firms to give students “the benefit of the doubt”.

    The appeal, posted to LinkedIn today by medical and cosmetic injury solicitor Chrissie Wolfe, argues that the “hard” exam is meant to replace a training contract, not supplement it, and that requiring students to do both effectively tests their competence twice. “You can afford to give them some leeway,” she writes.

    “There are still a number of glitches with various aspects of the process meaning that many students aren’t being taught the proper content for the exams, provided the correct conditions for taking the exams or afforded equal opportunity of passing,” Wolfe continues. “It’s still a new system, give the students the benefit of the doubt”.

    The SQE Hub: Your ultimate resource for all things SQE

    Wolfe, who regularly shares legal career advice on Instagram and TikTok, emphasises that “humility breeds loyalty and the more you support your candidates, the more they will support you back”.

    The lawyer’s post follows a recent Legal Cheek Career Conundrum featuring a student whose training contract offer was revoked after failing SQE1 on the first attempt — despite having mitigating circumstances.

    The post sparked plenty of comments, with advice ranging from appealing to the SRA to have the attempt struck out to publicly calling out the firm.

    The post ‘Give them some leeway’: Lawfluencer urges firms to stand by trainees who fail SQE appeared first on Legal Cheek.

    Source: Legal Cheek

  • Peter Bedford: ‘We are allowing the next generation to walk into financial ruin’

    The education system is supposed to be teaching young people about the Game Of Life, yet we are not even teaching them the rules of the game before they play. Since I was elected in July, I have had conversations with parents, bankers, teachers and students and they have all been clear that there is a belief that we are not teaching the next generation the importance of money. Management. In fact, only 1 per cent of teachers believe that their pupils hold adequate financial skills.

    Although there is a lack of financial education provision, I am certainly not claiming that previous parliaments have not recognised the importance of financial education. However, all attempts have been half-baked and have not made long-lasting difference.

    For instance, the coalition government in 2014 introduced legislation to make financial education a part of the National Curriculum. Yet, the introduction of Free-Schools and Academies meant that many students have been taken out of the National Curriculum remit. Whether you agree with curriculum independence for the aforementioned schools or not, it is regretful that they are not providing their students these vital financial life skills.

    This is at a time when young people need this education, the most.

    We are living in a world of technological advancement which has opened up access to financial decisions for young people. With the development of digital spending, 64 per cent of teenagers are regularly able to purchase items, without parental supervision, at the click of a button. Yet, most concerningly, options such as ‘Buy now, Pay later’ schemes have enabled teenagers to make credit purchases on high value items without acknowledging the means of paying for it.

    With fraudsters, also, now actively targeting 50 per cent of young people aged between 15-18. It is shocking that we as a country do not take financial education more seriously. In fact, these countless years of oversight have led to 1 in 2 adults not being able to pass a financial literacy test run by the OECD.  In these standings, we are well below comparable Western nations — and directly above Thailand and Albania.

    How on earth can this be the case for the 5th richest country in the world?

    Coming from a single-parent family in a more deprived area of the United Kingdom, I know the challenges that many face due to global economic shocks that are out of their control. I was lucky, I had grandparents that taught me about the importance of financial management. However, there are many that do not have this luxury. The increasing body of evidence shows that disparities in the levels of financial literacy between children from different socio-economic background is something that must be addressed.

    This is why I, alongside cross-party supporters, launched my #FinEd campaign.

    Last Tuesday, I introduced Financial Education 10 Minute Rule Bill to the House. In essence my Bill looks to achieve three goals.

    Firstly, the Bill would mandate financial education throughout the Primary School curriculum. I am not suggesting that teachers will have to teach 4-year-olds about mortgages and compound interest but, instead, the simpler aspects of budgeting and saving. This is essential as there have been numerous studies explaining how money habits are being formed in our next generation much earlier than had been presumed.

    Secondly, the Bill would consolidate financial education throughout the Secondary School curriculum. We simply must increase the number of Secondary students who are being taught financial education but we must also give teachers the confidence to do so. I recently spoke to Santander and they outlined how they offer free resources to teachers for money management lessons and they also advocated a cross-school approach. The cross-school approach would encourage aspects of financial education in a number of subjects such as History, Geography and IT.

    Thirdly, the Bill would extend financial education provision to post-16 educational settings. As students enter a time of their life where they start earning and have more financial freedom, we are currently dropping any education on their finances. It is therefore no wonder that MyBnk found that 96 per cent of young people worry about money daily and that 55 per cent of apprentice employers have witnessed young employees in financial difficulty.

    Whilst my Bill is unlikely to be passed into law due to the complexities of parliamentary procedure; I would strongly urge the government to support this cross-party campaign. We need to stop simply standing by and allowing the next generation to walk into financial ruin.

    Politics.co.uk is the UK’s leading digital-only political website. Subscribe to our daily newsletter for all the latest news and analysis.

    Source: Politics

  • Mishcon de Reya pursues pardon for the last woman hanged in the UK

    Ruth Ellis was executed in 1955

    Ruth Ellis

    London law firm Mishcon de Reya is pursuing a posthumous pardon for Ruth Ellis, the last woman to be hanged in the UK.

    Ellis, aged just 28, was convicted in 1955 of murdering her former lover, racing driver David Blakely. Her execution by hanging at Holloway Prison sparked national debate — and has continued to do so for decades. Now, her grandson Stephen Beard is hoping that new evidence not presented at her trial could finally clear her name.

    Mishcon’s partner and head of politics and law, Katy Colton, is leading the case.

    “Securing a posthumous pardon for Ruth Ellis is not just about correcting a historical wrong,” she said, “it is about acknowledging the systemic failures that led to her unjust conviction and execution.”

    Although pardons do not erase a conviction, they are a formal recognition that the original verdict was flawed. Under the Royal Prerogative of Mercy, the King has the power to grant a pardon, typically following a recommendation from the Ministry of Justice.

    The legal team at Mishcon is reviewing Ellis’s original trial alongside new claims that evidence was missed — including her allegedly abusive relationship with Blakely, and the role of another man, Desmond Cussen, in supplying the weapon used in the killing. Her family argue that these factors could have significantly affected the outcome of her trial, which lasted just two days and resulted in a guilty verdict after only 15 minutes of jury deliberation.

    There’s also pre-existing link between Mishcon and the case. The firm’s founder, Lord Victor Mishcon, attempted to intervene on Ellis’s behalf in 1955, after her conviction but before her execution. Managing partner James Libson called the firm’s renewed involvement “an opportunity to continue Lord Mishcon’s work” and “right a wrong”.

     The 2025 Legal Cheek Firms Most List

    He added: “Mishcon de Reya has always been driven by a socially conscious spirit… I very much hope we can help [the family] achieve justice for her.”

    The renewed push for a pardon comes as Ellis’s life is back in the spotlight, with the ITV drama A Cruel Love: The Ruth Ellis Story drawing fresh attention to the case.

    Anju Suneja, a partner and EDI board representative at the firm, said Ellis’s story still resonates today. “Women like Ruth who pressed for careers, independent financial security, and a different place in society often paid a severe price,” she said. “Ruth’s story continues to be relevant — particularly as domestic violence rises and hard-won freedoms are under threat around the world.”

    Mishcon is currently working on the case pro bono, while the family has launched a crowdfunding campaign to support further legal costs.

    If successful, the pardon would represent one of the most significant posthumous acknowledgements of injustice in British legal history.

    The post Mishcon de Reya pursues pardon for the last woman hanged in the UK appeared first on Legal Cheek.

    Source: Legal Cheek

  • Kate Osborne: ‘The end of the feudal leasehold system cannot come soon enough’

    The story is all too familiar. A young family scrimps and saves to buy their dream flat, or an older couple downsizes to pay for care and move into a smaller flat. Hidden in the small print, however, is something that will hit them time and time again — ground rents and service charges.

    These costs are often downplayed during the sale, but a few years after purchase, they start doubling or even trebling as happened to one of my constituents. For many, these costs become larger than the mortgage payments.

    What can they do? They can’t sell because who would want to buy a property they don’t truly own? Yet, they are indentured to pay these fees — often to faceless investment companies and landlords.

    When they receive the annual service charge statements, they find costs that bear no relation to the services they receive — street lighting for a block of flats, access to facilities they are not allowed to use, or simple paint jobs costing tens of thousands of pounds with no say over who carries out the work or how it is done.

    This is the trap of the feudal leasehold system, where people pay upfront to live somewhere as if they own it, but they never really do. For too long, this has harmed communities, leading to the poor condition of homes in my constituency and across the country. It is time for leasehold to go.

    Scotland has already abolished leaseholds, and the Conservatives promised to do the same. However, their proposed legislation was riddled with loopholes so large that an elephant could walk through them. That is why I am delighted that the Labour government is committed to abolishing new leaseholds forever and shifting the standard to commonhold.

    Commonhold is a little-used but cooperative system where everyone in a block owns a part of the common areas together. They, and only they, decide how to manage their flats. It was introduced at the end of the last Labour government, but landlords and property developers resisted giving up control. Now, Labour will force their hand and return power to tenants and end this unfair system.

    Along with making it easier for people to manage their own flats, stopping the rip-off of inflated ground rents, and enacting reforms for renters, this is the final cornerstone of fixing the housing sector.

    Many people talk about the need for more housebuilding, and we certainly need that. However, history shows that housebuilding alone does not solve the housing crisis. The market is not one single pool in which everyone is competing. Many people are stuck in specific types of homes, tied to certain areas due to work and family commitments. Developers building homes on greenfield sites may be good for their bottom line, but if those homes are not commonhold or freehold, if they are not council or social housing, and if they are not high-quality, well-insulated, and low-energy, then what is the point?

    We don’t need more houses for the rich; we need them for ordinary people—the older couple downsizing to free up larger homes for families, the young family buying their first flat. That vision is impossible if debt collectors are knocking at the door for hidden fees and charges.

    This is what Labour will change, preventing future leasehold abuses and ending this unfair system cannot come soon enough for the leaseholders in Jarrow and Gateshead East and the estimated five million leasehold properties in England.

    Source: Politics

  • UK sentencing shake-up slammed by… Judge Judy

    Unforeseen critic

    Judge Judy

    US courtroom star Judge Judy has waded into Britain’s row over controversial new sentencing guidelines — branding the changes “a mistake” and declaring the justice system “broken”.

    Appearing on Good Morning Britain last week, the famously no-nonsense TV judge, who previously served as a Manhattan family court judge, was asked about new guidance for English and Welsh courts that advises judges to consider an offender’s ethnicity before deciding whether to send them to prison.

    The guidelines, issued by the independent Sentencing Council and set to come into force in April, place greater emphasis on pre-sentence reports for certain groups, including people from ethnic minority or faith backgrounds. These reports are designed to offer judges more information about an offender’s background, potentially influencing sentencing decisions.

    But Judge Judy—real name Judy Sheindlin, a US-qualified lawyer—wasn’t having it. In an interview on the ITV breakfast show, she said: “It’s a mistake. Sometimes well intentions people create bad law. I don’t know how those criteria you mentioned have anything to do with rehabilitation — I would be furious if I didn’t fit one of those criteria.”

    She went on to say the current justice system is “broken”, and that making it “look more compassionate”, won’t solve the problem.

    The 2025 Legal Cheek Firms Most List

    Her comments come as the UK government scrambles to respond to mounting criticism from the opposition benches. Shadow justice secretary Robert Jenrick has branded the guidance a “two-tier system” and is calling for the law to be changed so ministers can overrule the Sentencing Council.

    Justice Secretary Shabana Mahmood has publicly distanced herself from the guidance. “There will never be a two-tier sentencing approach under my watch,” Mahmood insisted, promising to write to the council to express her “displeasure”.

    Meanwhile, the Sentencing Council has defended its approach, arguing it helps judges understand and address the disadvantages certain groups face in the justice system. Statistics show that offenders from ethnic minority backgrounds consistently receive longer custodial sentences than white offenders for similar crimes.

    Still, critics argue the changes could undermine the principle of equal treatment before the law — and Judge Judy appears to agree.

     The 2025 Legal Cheek Firms Most List

    The post UK sentencing shake-up slammed by… Judge Judy appeared first on Legal Cheek.

    Source: Legal Cheek

  • Ben Goldsborough: ‘Reform claim to put Britain first, but their words betray them’

    Reform UK like to wrap themselves in the Union Jack, but at the slightest breeze it is pulled back to reveal they’re clad head to toe in the Kremlin’s colours.

    This isn’t hyperbole. From every word uttered to every act they undertake we can see they don’t stand up for forgotten communities. No. Instead, they seek the advancement of the theory that only might is right and to hell with everyone else.

    Asked who he admired as a global leader it took no time whatsoever for the leader of Reform UK, Nigel Farage MP, to say “Putin” calling him a “clever political operator”. Not feeling like it was a job done, in a separate interview Mr Farage said that Ukraine and the West provoke Russia into invading. Then we have the comments made most recently by the Reform UK leader that president Zelensky should apologise to president Trump for not wearing a suit. 

    But this isn’t limited to one Reform UK MP. Rupert Lowe, the man anointed by Elon Musk to take the crown from Nigel Farage, suggested that president Trump has bigger fish to fry than Russia’s invasion of Ukraine. A breathtaking statement to make.

    The eagled-eyed history buffs reading this piece will very quickly recall that Winston Churchill was often photographed entering the White House wearing his very less than formal RAF siren suit. For those not familiar with the photo imagine Sir Winston wearing overalls and being ready to fix a Spitfire at a moment’s notice. Now, Mr Farage and others may have the privilege of a Coutts bank account and the luxury of knowing that a Shahed 136 drone will not suddenly drop out of the sky on his home, but that doesn’t mean he has the right to tell a wartime leader what to wear.

    Moreover, whilst Reform UK can pontificate about sartorial elegance, president Zelensky is having to battle-plan, consider the 12,600 civilian deaths of his fellow compatriots and an international world order which has been flipped on its head. I’m keen to remind Reform UK of the British Second World War advert which stated: “To dress extravagantly in war time is worse than bad form. It is unpatriotic.”

    Anyone who tries to defend Vladimir Putin’s illegal annexation of Crimea or his bloody rampage in Ukraine isn’t standing up for Britain — they’re doing the Kremlin’s bidding. Whether through denial, excuses, or outright support, they appear to act not as patriots but as nodding dogs of war, obediently yapping along to Moscow’s tune.

    Putin’s Poodles might claim to put Britain first, but their words betray them. When they parrot Kremlin talking points, undermine Western resolve, and call for appeasement in the face of Russian aggression, they aren’t serving British interests — they’re serving Putin’s. True patriotism means standing firm against tyrants, not rolling over to them for belly rubs.

    When I drive around my constituency, I see Union flags flying proudly next to Ukrainian flags. Whether it’s from a church steeple, village hall or a slightly more ramshackled attempt of making them stand tall out of a hedge in front garden, South Norfolk residents are showing they stand with Ukraine. For they know that to stand up to a bully is pure Britishness. We cannot abide those who do not play by the rules.

    So, we must call out those who use the sacred emblems of patriotism to further the racket of greed. They do not advocate for a Britain that stands proud on the world stage. Those individuals are interested in only one thing: power. Power without responsibility and they will do whatever it takes to gain it — including selling our allies and ourselves down the river to those who wish to destroy us.

    Politics.co.uk is the UK’s leading digital-only political website. Subscribe to our daily newsletter for all the latest news and analysis.

    Source: Politics

  • Top banking lawyer who referred to colleagues as ‘Jabba the Hutt’ and ‘The idiot’ fined £15k

    Breached SRA principles

    An ex-BNP Paribas lawyer has been ordered to pay £31,000 after a disciplinary tribunal found he nicknamed colleagues “the Idiot”, “Pol Pot”, “Jabba the Hutt”, and more.

    Benedict Foster, former head of legal for BNP Paribas London’s debt and equity team, faced the Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal (SDT) over his use of “inappropriate, unprofessional and/or offensive nicknames,” which breached SRA principles. The tribunal fined him £15,000 and ordered an additional £16,000 in costs.

    Besides the nicknames, Foster was also found to have used “offensive and/or inappropriate language” around the office. This included “c*nts”, “Looks like a bunch of c*ck”, “what the f*ck is this?” and “asking if another individual is autistic”.

    The nicknaming emerged during an exit interview, reporting that Foster had called a French colleague “Mad Paul”, used “Hu She” for an Asian female colleague, and named another French co-worker “Biriyani”. Foster also admitted to calling others “the Idiot”, “the Twittering Fool”, “Pol Pot”, and “Jabba the Hutt” while at BNP Paribas from December 2020 to September 2021.

    Foster, who trained at Linklaters before moving in-house to the French bank, had been investigated internally following the exit interview report. The bank passed its findings to the regulator in March 2022 and Foster left that month. According to his LinkedIn profile, Foster has been “retired” since then.

    The 2025 Legal Cheek Firms Most List

    Foster denied that the moniker “Mad Paul” referred to his colleague’s qualities as a lawyer, explaining instead that the nickname stemmed from his colleague’s “slightly cavalier approach to timekeeping, attendance at the office and his interpersonal skill”.

    Foster admitted that even if his colleagues “shared his humour” that was no excuse. The tribunal determined that Foster had not upheld the standards expected of solicitors, had failed to act with integrity, and did not promote diversity, equity, and inclusion.

    At his hearing, Foster’s barrister noted the remarks were made during the Covid pandemic, which was a “very stressful time” worsened by working from home with a new IT system.

    The barrister said his client “wishes to apologise” because he “never intended any offence” and that “there was never any racist intent whatsoever”.

    The post Top banking lawyer who referred to colleagues as ‘Jabba the Hutt’ and ‘The idiot’ fined £15k appeared first on Legal Cheek.

    Source: Legal Cheek

  • UK government urged to publish legal advice on seizing frozen Russian assets

    The UK government has been urged to publish the legal advice that is shaping ministers’ decision-making over whether to seize Russian assets to benefit Ukraine. 

    The Liberal Democrats have written to the attorney general, Lord Hermer, as pressure mounts on the government to seize frozen Russian assets and repurpose them to fund support for Ukraine. 

    The calls for the government to move from freezing Russian assets to seizing them have grown in recent days in light of US president Donald Trump’s decision to suspend military aid to the war-torn Eastern European country.

    The Lib Dem request also comes amid suggestions that Lord Hermer is holding up a plan to seize frozen Russian assets. According to The Times newspaper, the attorney general has been criticised by some in government for warning ministers against the move.

    There is a “live discussion” across Whitehall about options for using Russian assets to plug the gap left by the pause in US military assistance to Ukraine, the newspaper reports. 

    Rishi Sunak, the former prime minister, is among those advocating a seizure of Russian assets to fund the Ukrainian war effort and/or future re-development projects.

    ***Politics.co.uk is the UK’s leading digital-only political website. Subscribe to our daily newsletter for all the latest news and analysis.***

    Week-in-Review: Lord Hermer, Blue Labour and the defining choice Keir Starmer faces

    Sunak told the House of Commons on Tuesday: “Events overnight [Trump’s decision to suspend military aid] make it even clearer that Europe must find considerably more resources for Ukraine.”

    He added: “The chancellor has rightly continued our policy of using the interest on frozen Russian state assets to benefit Ukraine, but I believe now is the moment to go further and to actually seize those assets.

    “Russia’s invasion of Ukraine violates the principle of sovereign equality providing a basis in international law for this and by acting in concert with our allies we can ensure there are no risks to financial stability.”

    Responding to Sunak at commons Treasury questions, chancellor Rachel Reeves insisted that it is “incredibly complicated” to take further action in line with international law. However, she added Russia should “pay for the damage that Russia has caused”.

    Reeves said: “As the prime minister said yesterday, we would look at going further but as [he] knows it is incredibly complicated to do that in line with international law, but we keep all options on the table because [he] is absolutely right, Russia should pay for the damage that Russia has caused.”

    Ben Maguire, the Lib Dem shadow attorney general, has now written to his government counterpart demanding he publish the legal advice underpinning ministers’ decision-making around the potential seizure of the assets.

    Commenting, Maguire has urged the government to “make his reasoning public” — calling for “proper scrutiny” of the decision as Ukraine’s military capacity to resist Putin is undermined by the White House.

    Trump’s decisions to cut aid to Ukraine and ban the UK from sharing military intelligence with the besieged nation have “crippled” Zelensky’s defence effort, he added.

    The Lib Dem MP said: “Zelensky’s besieged nation has been crippled by Trump’s callous approach to Ukraine’s defence. From cutting aid to banning intelligence sharing at the drop of a hat, it’s clear we need a plan B to halt Putin’s brutal invasion.

    “We know that the UK holds billions in frozen Russian assets – capital that could transform Kyiv’s defence effort and counteract the reckless decisions coming from the White House. We’ve rightly seized the interest on these assets, but it’s time for Britain to go further and faster.

    “That’s why I’m calling on the UK Attorney General to make his reasoning public, and publish his legal advice to the government on seizing the frozen assets in full. We need the chance to properly scrutinise the decision-making on this crucial issue, so the UK can then make the right choice for Ukraine.”

    His letter to Lord Hermer adds: “Currently, the profits accruing from frozen Russian assets across the UK are being used to fund Ukraine’s resistance. This is the right thing to do.

    “It is essential, however, that the UK goes further and faster. US president Trump’s decision to suspend military aid supplies and intelligence sharing with the Armed Forces of Ukraine makes it imperative that we do more, now, to contribute to Kyiv’s defence…

    “As Attorney General, will you — as a matter of urgency — publish the legal advice that you have provided to the UK government in relation to the proposed seizure of frozen Russian assets?”

    Foreign secretary David Lammy has agreed in principle that Europe should “move” from freezing Russian assets to seizing them.

    Late last month at commons Foreign Office questions, the foreign secretary was urged to introduce legislation to “repurpose” Russian assets for the Ukrainian war effort by Lib Dem MP Alison Bennett.

    Lammy insisted that this is not an issue on which any government can act alone. “We must act with European allies”, he said.

    He added: “It was a topic of conversation at the G7. It was a topic of conversation at the Weimar group. And of course, Europe has to act quickly. And I believe we should move from freezing assets to seizing assets.”

    Josh Self is Editor of Politics.co.uk, follow him on Bluesky here.

    Politics.co.uk is the UK’s leading digital-only political website. Subscribe to our daily newsletter for all the latest news and analysis.

    Rishi Sunak: Now is the moment to seize Russian assets to help Ukraine

    Source: Politics

  • Gibson Dunn to boost London trainee numbers by 50%

    10 to 15 from September 2027

    The London office of US law firm Gibson Dunn will increase its trainee numbers by 50%, from 10 to 15.

    The uplift in TC positions will come into effect in September 2027 as the firm looks grow its presence in the City. It established its London base in 1979 and is now home to over 150 lawyers.

    The Legal Cheek Firms Most 2025 List indicates that this increase will bring the firm’s trainee intake broadly in line with fellow US firms Kirkland & Ellis, Ropes & Gray and Weil Gotshal.

     The 2025 Legal Cheek Firms Most List

    A spokesperson for Gibson Dunn said:

    “We are increasing our trainee intake to 15 per year for our September 2027 intake. This reflects the growth of our London office, and our commitment to developing home-grown talent across practices. Our trainees will continue to receive opportunities and hands-on experience across a wide range of practices, and through client and international secondments.”

    Gibson Dunn’s current cohort of trainees are among the best-paid in the City, earning £125,000 over the course of their training contract and a market-leading £180,000 upon qualification.

    The post Gibson Dunn to boost London trainee numbers by 50% appeared first on Legal Cheek.

    Source: Legal Cheek