Paradise News

Tag: United Kingdom

  • Ukraine calls in Hogan Lovells for US minerals deal

    Washington partners drafted in

    Hogan Lovells has been drafted in by the Ukrainian Ministry of Justice to advise on negotiations with the US over a potentially massive minerals agreement — one that would likely secure US support and investment into Ukraine.

    The firm’s involvement was revealed through a filing under the US Foreign Agents Registration Act (FARA) register, which confirms Hogan Lovells’ US arm will provide legal advice on “international trade and US policy issues” linked to the deal. The formal engagement was signed on 8 April 2025 and submitted to the US Department of Justice the following day.

    According to the paperwork, Hogan’s Washington-based partners, Deen Kaplan and Adam Kushner, will lead the work — both billing at $1,500 an hour.

    The filing reportedly coincides with the start of technical talks in Washington between US and Ukrainian officials, as part of a wider effort to agree terms for an investment fund that would manage revenue from Ukraine’s mineral wealth.

    But politics has complicated the path forward. A planned signing ceremony at the end of February was famously derailed after a heated Oval Office row between Zelensky and Donald Trump, who accused the Ukrainian leader of showing insufficient gratitude for US support and allegedly told him, “You don’t have the cards.” Trump subsequently paused all military aid to Ukraine, and said Zelensky could “come back when he is ready for peace”.

    The political backdrop remains tense. Trump has repeatedly claimed the US has given Ukraine between $300 billion (£237 billion) and $350 billion (£276 billion) in aid, and has framed the minerals deal as a way for America to “get that money back”.

    The 2025 Legal Cheek Firms Most List

    Zelensky, meanwhile, has been pushing for the agreement to include a firm US security guarantee, something he views as essential amid continued Russian aggression. No such guarantee has been offered so far, although the published draft text states that the US supports “Ukraine’s efforts to obtain security guarantees to build lasting peace”.

    This deal will see Hogan’s US heavyweights attempt to pick up the pieces and negotiate against the White House to facilitate the agreement on behalf of Ukraine.

    This latest activity by Hogan Lovells follows scrutiny from the Trump administration, which launched a sweeping probe last month into the DEI policies at 20 major law firms, including Hogan Lovells itself. The firm, alongside other global firms such as A&O Shearman and Freshfields, is now facing demands from the US Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) to hand over detailed records on hiring and compensation practices.

    According to Law.com (£), the firm responded by renaming its “diversity, equity and inclusion” pages to “HL Inclusion”, removing references to LGBTQ+, disability and “institutional racism”, and replacing its DEI video with a message from its CEO.

    The post Ukraine calls in Hogan Lovells for US minerals deal appeared first on Legal Cheek.

    Source: Legal Cheek

  • Families deserve better than this broken social care system

    Exhausting, gruelling and stressful – just some of the words parents have used to describe their experiences of the children’s social care system. It’s a system that exists to support disabled children across the UK, of which there are 1.8 million, but unfortunately the evidence points to a fragmented, underfunded and frankly broken system, that’s letting children down and taking a huge toll on families.

    Disabled children are supposed to get support from the children’s social care system following an assessment from a social worker. If a social worker determines a child needs support, for example, in the home or with access to day services, this can be covered by local authority budgets.

    But new research by Sense reveals what parents have known for a long time – the huge delays they face to receive support.  According to our latest findings, parents are waiting more than 200 days for their child to be seen by a social worker before they can even have an assessment, with a significant number (17 per cent) waiting over a year. Without a referral and assessment, families are unable to get any support from their local authority.

    The situation means families that are able will often pay out of their own pocket to meet their disabled child’s health and social care costs, ranging from private assessments to therapy, home adaptations to accessible transport.

    According to our research parents of disabled children spent more than £1,500 of their own money in the past six months to meet their disabled child’s needs. That’s over £250 a month.

    This cash is from parents’ own pockets and does not include any welfare benefits, with more than half (56 per cent) of parents telling Sense they have had to use their savings to afford support for their child, because not enough support has been provided by their local authority.

    The financial toll this takes on families is huge, forcing some to turn to loans, credit cards and even crowdfunding to plug the gaps. The double whammy here is that many parents have to reduce their work hours or quit their jobs entirely to provide support for their disabled children – be that education support, social care support, attending healthcare appointments and more – meaning that families are also sacrificing their incomes. More than half (53 per cent) of parents have cut their working hours, with 40 per cent having to give up work entirely.

    As one mum told us: “We were used to living on two salaries, and then mine was basically replaced by £327 per month carer’s allowance. If my son was getting everything that we know he needs, and he was properly supported, I would be in work. But because we’ve been let down, we’re in this situation instead.”

    Parents are picking up the pieces of a broken system and fighting for scraps of support. It shouldn’t be this way – with families forced through multiple assessments, facing delay after delay. Many end up in court just to get what they’re entitled to, with 40 per cent of families who have been successful in securing social care support saying they had to fight their case at tribunal to get there.

    Imagine the mental toll this constant battle has on families. Many are exhausted, broken and losing sleep, with one parent, forced to quit her job to fight for her disabled son, saying: “I have been keeping myself from having a breakdown. It’s taken a lot out of me and my family. I’m struggling.”

    Disabled children and their futures are clearly bearing the brunt of this fragmented, underfunded system. So what can be done to fix it?

    The problems in the system are deep-rooted: research from the Disabled Children’s Partnership found a funding gap of £573 million in 2019/20 – a figure that’s most likely risen since this research was carried out. To fix this will require political will.

    The government needs to simplify and streamline this confusing system by establishing a clear and consistent pathway to accessing support through new laws, and laws that ensure all disabled children are assessed for their social care needs when they need it. These changes must be backed by adequate funding and investment in local services.

    Good social care can be a lifeline for disabled children, but it’s a lifeline out of reach for too many families. The government must make disabled children a priority by reforming this confusing children’s social care system, to give more children the best start in life.

    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

  • New docu-series exploring the lives of criminal barristers premieres tonight

    Essential viewing for criminal bar hopefuls

    A new Channel 4 documentary series, airing tonight, offers viewers a rare glimpse into the criminal bar as it follows barristers from leading chambers handling cases ranging from murder and drug conspiracies to motoring offences.

    Barristers: Fighting For Justice follows defence barristers over three episodes, giving viewers an insight into the challenges facing the criminal bar — all while bewigged lawyers prepare for high-stakes trial advocacy. Filmed over four years with “unparalleled access” to the lawyers, Barristers was originally announced as The Defenders in 2021.

    The first episode features two barristers from London set 25 Bedford Row — Matthew Radstone and Leon-Nathan Lynch. Radstone’s client is a cab driver accused of transporting £1 million cocaine in an international drugs conspiracy. Lynch, meanwhile, defends a client in an alleged knifepoint carjacking — apparently staged for insurance fraud — all the while his co-accused has a different story.

    In future episodes, cases concern a gangland murder, a speeding charge, deportation, a man having bitten another person’s ear off, county lines drugs gangs, and a 15-year-old who is charged with the murder.

    Radstone and Lynch are not the only barristers on screen — the series will include barristers from other sets like Great James Street Chambers.

    The criminal bar is still facing serious challenges. Financial pressures and mental strain are driving lawyers away, with as many as a third considering leaving the profession altogether.

    Documentaries like this aim to offer a rare, insider’s view of the justice system. As Lynch puts it in a LinkedIn post: “If you think it’s not your thing — watch it anyway. You never know when the law might find you wanting…”

    Barristers: Fighting for Justice airs its first episode tonight (Tuesday) on Channel 4 at 10pm.

    The post New docu-series exploring the lives of criminal barristers premieres tonight appeared first on Legal Cheek.

    Source: Legal Cheek

  • Solicitor ‘restrained’ after judge lets them bypass court security

    Judge issued formal advice

    A judge who helped a solicitor enter a court building through an “alternative entrance” after they refused to comply with security checks has been issued with formal advice.

    Judge Jenna McKinney, who was sitting as a magistrate at the time, let the unnamed duty solicitor back into the court building through another entrance after they had previously been denied re-entry by security staff.

    The solicitor’s subsequent re-entry via other means led to “a dispute between the solicitor and security staff, resulting in the solicitor having to be restrained,” the JCIO said in a statement.

    At the time, McKinney held appointments as both a magistrate and a tribunal judge. She has since stepped down from the magistracy but continues to sit in the Immigration and Asylum Chamber.

    The 2025 Legal Cheek Firms Most List

    In her explanation to investigators, McKinney said she believed the bench needed to find a way to deal with the solicitor’s absence, as they were due to represent several parties in a case that was about to begin. Her intention, she said, was to ensure the hearing could proceed.

    She accepted in hindsight that her actions were inappropriate and apologised.

    The JCIO noted that judicial office-holders are expected to maintain confidence in their impartiality and to comply with court security policies. Following an investigation under the Judicial Conduct Rules 2023, a nominated judge found McKinney’s actions amounted to misconduct.

    However, the judge considering the case took into account McKinney’s previously unblemished record, full engagement with the investigation, and the fact she had not been assisted by others present at the time.

    With those mitigating factors in mind, the judge recommended a sanction of formal advice — the lowest level of disciplinary action available. The recommendation was accepted by the Senior President of Tribunals, on behalf of the Lady Chief Justice and with the agreement of the Lord Chancellor.

    The post Solicitor ‘restrained’ after judge lets them bypass court security appeared first on Legal Cheek.

    Source: Legal Cheek

  • ‘I’ve got solicitor apprenticeship offers from two Magic Circle firms and a top US firm – how do I choose?’

    Big decision

    In our latest Career Conundrum, a soon-to-be solicitor apprentice finds themselves in the enviable position of choosing between three offers from Magic Circle and US firms.

    “Hello Legal Cheek. I have been lucky enough to receive three offers for a solicitor apprenticeship, one US law firm and the other two are members of the Magic Circle. I’d prefer not to name them if that’s ok. Basically I am struggling to decide between the three. Pay and training structure seem very similar but I wondered if your readers had any insights into the Magic Circle versus US law firms, especially from a training/apprenticeship perspective?”

    If you have a career conundrum, email us at tips@legalcheek.com.

     The 2025 Legal Cheek Solicitor Apprenticeships Most List

    The post ‘I’ve got solicitor apprenticeship offers from two Magic Circle firms and a top US firm – how do I choose?’ appeared first on Legal Cheek.

    Source: Legal Cheek

  • A&O Shearman, Kirkland, and Latham among latest firms to strike deals with Trump

    President’s pro bono haul exceeds £700 million

    Five more leading law firms have announced they will provide millions of dollars worth of free legal services in exchange for exemptions from sanctions imposed by President Donald Trump’s executive orders.

    Each pledging $125 million (£96 million) in pro bono support, the latest outfits to join the initiative include Magic Circle player A&O Shearman; Kirkland & Ellis – the world’s most profitable firm; Latham & Watkins; and Simpson, Thacher & Bartlett. Meanwhile, Cadwalader, Wickersham & Taft will contribute $100 million (£76 million) in pro bono and other free legal services for causes both Trump and the firms “support and agree to work on”.

    A&O Shearman — formed in 2024 through the merger of Magic Circle firm Allen & Overy and US firm Shearman & Sterling — has become the first UK-headquartered law firm to strike a deal with Trump.

    A number of big legal names have already entered into agreements with the president amid fears they could be cut off from lucrative legal work.

    Legal Cheek reported how Paul Weiss, the first target, pledged $40 million whilst Willkie Farr & Gallagher, Milbank, and Skadden will cough-up $100 million in services. The Trump administration has now accumulated a total commitment from the firms of $940 million (£713 million) worth of pro bono work.

    According to Law360, Trump said: “Have you noticed a lot of law firms have been signing up with Trump? A hundred million dollars, another $100 million, for damages that they’ve done…But they give you $100 million, and then they announce that, ‘But we have done nothing wrong’. And I agree, they’ve done nothing wrong, but what the hell, they give me a lot of money considering they’ve done nothing wrong.”

    The 2025 Legal Cheek Firms Most List

    In a joint statement, the leaders from A&O, Kirkland, Latham, and Simpson Thacher & Bartlett said:

    “We have resolved this matter while upholding long-held principles important to each of our firms: equal employment opportunity; providing pro bono assistance to a wide range of underserved populations, and ensuring fairness in the justice system; and representing a broad spectrum of clients on various matters.”

    Meanwhile, Cadwalader’s managing partner said: “The substance of our agreement is consistent with the principles that have guided Cadwalader for over 230 years…We firmly believe that this outcome is in the best interests of our clients, our people, and our firm.”

    The firms will also commit to stop engaging in what Trump describes as “illegal” diversity, equity and inclusion practices and focus instead on “merit-based hiring, promotion, and retention”.

    While some law firms have opted to strike deals, others are pushing back against the US president. Three sanctioned firms — Perkins Coie, WilmerHale, and Jenner & Block — have launched legal challenges against the orders and successfully secured temporary restraining orders.

    The post A&O Shearman, Kirkland, and Latham among latest firms to strike deals with Trump appeared first on Legal Cheek.

    Source: Legal Cheek

  • Louise Haigh: ‘NDAs are silencing victims of workplace abuse — urgent reform is needed’ 

    When you see the term ‘NDAs’ in the title of this article, many readers will likely conjure up Hollywood scandals or corporate boardroom dramas.

    But the reality is far more disturbing, and much closer to home. It is vital that we dispel the many misconceptions about this legal tool and lay bare how it has been exploited to cover up abuse and wrongdoing on an epic scale.

    The reality is that in today’s world NDAs have become a shorthand for secrecy and silencing. Originally designed with a practical objective of protecting intellectual property, they are now routinely used to shut down allegations of harassment, abuse and discrimination — often against those with no means of challenging them.

    These victims are left to suffer in silence, failed by the very legal system that should protect them. The extent of the usage is truly shocking, with some lawyers estimating that they are included in over 90% of such settlements, covering cases involving sexual assault, harassment, racial discrimination, disability and pregnancy discrimination, LGBTQ+ discrimination, bullying, and other workplace misconduct.

    We cannot continue to pretend that NDAs are harmless legal instruments — they have become central to the suppression of abuse and mistreatment.

    Since I spoke in parliament last month, I have been utterly inundated with stories from people trapped by NDAs. These are not powerful executives or celebrities, but people often with little job security and even less access to justice. I have been honoured that so many have trusted me to hear their stories in full, despite the real risks they face from exposure.

    In one truly harrowing case, I spoke with an incredibly brave woman who explained that after being raped by a colleague, she couldn’t even speak to medical professionals, because of a confidentiality clause she signed. Leaving her unable to properly recover from her trauma or even speak out to stop others suffering the same fate.

    These aren’t isolated cases, it is systemic. A recent survey by the campaign group Can’t Buy My Silence found that in the hospitality sector, 100% of confidentiality clauses are being routinely drafted too broadly. That’s not about protecting trade secrets — that’s about silencing people.

    Some of these clauses may not stand up legally or be enforceable by the courts — but that’s not the point. The chilling effect, the fear, the isolation, the sense that speaking out might ruin your life — that’s the real impact.

    By their very nature they gag those who often need to speak up the most, disguising their prevalence and ubiquity. This issue is perfectly demonstrated by the woman who told me about the mental health charity she works for, which has discriminated on disability grounds against at least 4 people in the last year that she is personally aware of.  Three of them have signed an NDA, she is bravely pursuing them through the courts because she believes it is the only way to get justice.

    And if we can’t call out our own, we have no business in speaking truth to power so we must acknowledge that within our own labour movement, trade unions have been accused of using confidentiality clauses in settlements, which have the same chilling effect as NDAs. If our most progressive and socially conscious organisations are regularly exploiting this practice, then we must accept that it is a serious problem in every type of workplace in this country and we have to conclude that employers simply cannot be trusted with this tool at their disposal.

    And here’s the reality: as so often is the case, it’s low-paid, insecure workers — those with the least power — who are most affected. People who can’t afford the costly, time-consuming battle of taking an employer to court. Workers simply trying to do their jobs, only to be met with enforced secrecy when something goes wrong.

    But what should we do to tackle them? Well, we certainly don’t need any more consultations. The women and equalities select committee, the Treasury select committee, and BEIS (now DBT) have all investigated this issue and concluded that reform is needed. Multiple jurisdictions, including Ireland, Canada, and over half of US states, have already legislated.

    We need urgent action to end this cycle of abuse. That’s why I tabled an amendment to the Employment Rights Bill to ban NDAs in cases of abuse, harassment, and discrimination. And I was proud to receive cross-party support from 66 MPs. This is not a partisan issue, but one I hope the whole House will agree needs to be addressed.

    We simply cannot wait any longer, the time for consultations has long passed. The longer we fail to address this, the more people we are condemning to suffer in silence. The government says it’s open to options. My question is: what more evidence do we need?

    We have a chance now to lead, to bring an end to legalised abuse in the workplace, and to put the rights of victims above the reputation management of institutions. It is my hope that soon I won’t have to read yet another case of abuse gone unspoken due to the ubiquity of NDAs.

    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

  • Paralegal barred after fabricating email to cover up error

    Misled court

    A paralegal has been barred from working in the legal profession after fabricating an email to cover up a mistake that caused a client’s case to be struck out.

    Chaida Aboobakar was working as a personal injury paralegal at New Law Solicitors, a Cardiff-based firm, when she mistakenly included the wrong case number on a payment request. As a result, the case was struck out due to non-payment of the required fee.

    In an attempt to cover up the error, Aboobakar fabricated an email showing the correct case number, according to the Solicitors Regulation Authority (SRA). However, this email did not match the original one held by the court.

    In an application for relief against sanction, the paralegal submitted a witness statement in which she explained the unpaid fee was down to the court’s error and even went as far as instructing counsel on the matter.

    The matter continued for around four months, during which the paralegal insisted the court was at fault and made similar claims to the opposing solicitors.

    The 2025 Legal Cheek Firms Most List

    Concerns raised by the judge handling the case prompted an internal investigation by NewLaw. The firm found that the only email sent to the court was the original one containing the incorrect case number — confirming that Aboobakar had fabricated the follow-up email in an attempt to cover her tracks.

    On that basis, the SRA found Aboobakar to have “deliberately tried to mislead the court, counsel and solicitors for the counter-party and had fabricated documentation placed before the court. In doing so, she acted dishonestly and without integrity”.

    The regulator disqualified Aboobakar from holding any role at a law firm. She was also directed to pay costs of £600.

    The post Paralegal barred after fabricating email to cover up error appeared first on Legal Cheek.

    Source: Legal Cheek

  • Michael Gove awarded peerage in Sunak’s resignation resignation honours list

    Michael Gove is among several former cabinet ministers to be given a seat in the House of Lords in Rishi Sunak’s resignation honours list.

    The former levelling up secretary served in the cabinets of four prime ministers before standing down as an MP ahead of last July’s general election.

    A rare constant across the fourteen years of Conservative governance that came to an end in 2024, Gove also served as education secretary, chief whip, justice secretary, environment secretary and chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster.

    Gove, who was MP for Surrey Heath for nearly 20 years, is now editor of the Spectator magazine.

    Meanwhile, former chancellor Jeremy Hunt and former foreign secretary James Cleverly have been awarded knighthoods.

    Mark Harper, former transport secretary; Simon Hart, former chief whip; Alister Jack, former Scottish secretary; and Victoria Prentis, former attorney general, are the four other onetime cabinet ministers to have been awarded a peerage in Sunak’s resignation honours list.

    This breaking news story is being updated and more details will be published shortly.

    Please refresh the page for the fullest version.

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

    Source: Politics

  • BigLaw associate goes viral on TikTok urging law students to ditch influencer dreams

    Don’t risk your legal rep

    A US lawyer has gone viral on TikTok after warning students to think twice before becoming “lawfluencers”, arguing that BigLaw and social media “do not mix at all”.

    The lawyer, known on TikTok as “domhdc”, cautions aspiring lawyers that they didn’t spend hundreds of thousands of dollars on law school (yes, fees in the US are astronomically high!) just to “risk your legal reputation on TikTok”.

    “Specifically if you’re going into BigLaw you should really reconsider making a bunch of legal content and trying to be an influencer because these two professions do not mix at all,” she says.

    @domhdc Law students STOP trying to be influencers…sorry! #biglaw #lawtok #lawschool #legal #barexam #lawyer #attorney #attorneysoftiktok ♬ original sound – domhdc

    The lawyer, who says she’s 25 and works at a BigLaw firm, says she has seen associates fired over their lawfluencing and believes it is simply not worth the risk.

    The TikTok has since gone viral, racking up over 2.5 million views, 250,000 likes and nearly 3,000 comments — several from well-known UK lawfluencers.

    Henry Nelson-Case, otherwise known as ‘That Corporate Lawyer’, responded: “Oh — probably should have watched this sooner ”. Meanwhile, lawyer and content creator Chrissie Wolfe went so far as to post her own response video, explaining how her YouTube channel had helped propel her legal career.

    But some shared the lawyer’s view that aspiring solicitors should put down the selfie sticks and step away from the ring lights.

    Arisa Amara wrote, “As a Hiring Manager in Big Law, I approve of this message,” while another user commented, “Anyone with a serious career and upward trajectory potential please stay off TikTok.”

    Many other commenters were quick to point out that domhdc seemed to be doing exactly what she was advising against. They might have a point.

    Follow Legal Cheek on TikTok

    The post BigLaw associate goes viral on TikTok urging law students to ditch influencer dreams appeared first on Legal Cheek.

    Source: Legal Cheek