Tag: United Kingdom

‘There’s always a reckoning’

The managing partner of City law firm Simmons & Simmons has questioned how long the boom in lawyer salaries can go on for, stating that at it’s current rate it is “not sustainable”.

“I just don’t think other professionals get paid really anything like what lawyers are getting paid”, Jeremy Hoyland added. “I can’t think of any industry that keeps doing that forever, there’s always a reckoning. It’s not sustainable, particularly when everybody [focuses] on the same thing.”

Hoyland, who has managed the firm since 2011 and overseen the opening of no less than nine offices around the globe, went on to tell Financial News that “inflation has been really quite extraordinary at all levels and it is different to every other profession”.

These growing paydays are easy to see from Simmmons’ own stats. Back in 2019-20 the firm’s newly qualified lawyers were earning £79,000 in London and £52,000 in Bristol. Today, after chunky raises over the past few years, recruits can expect £120,000 in the City and £96,000 in the West Country, respective upticks of 51% and 85%.

At the top end, profit per equity partner (PEP) has also risen by more than 50% in the last five years, and now sits at around £1.1 million.

This is far from a trend exclusive to Simmons, however. Year-on-year raises have seen pay boom, with the Legal Cheek Firms Most List 2025 showing that fresh faced associates at Gibson Dunn and Paul Weiss receive a pay packet of £180,000 (without bonuses). There are now 53 firms paying over £100k for new lawyers, with 30 of these clocking in north of £150k.

With the average NQ pay rising by 7.5% last year, the numbers would suggest that it won’t be long before these top-end salaries rise to £200,000 and beyond, or the industry reaches its “reckoning”.

Follows two-year pilot

From today, journalists will gain unprecedented access to report on family court cases in England and Wales, in what the UK’s most senior family judge has hailed as a “watershed” change.

Accredited journalists can now observe family court proceedings, and quote from key documents — provided strict anonymity rules are followed. Although hearings have been previously held in private, journalists have been permitted to attend since 2009 — but without the right to report on proceedings.

Family courts handle cases with life-changing consequences for families, such as deciding whether children should go into care or which parent they should live with.

Sir Andrew McFarlane, president of the Family Division, said: “The establishment of the open reporting provisions in all family courts in England and Wales is a watershed moment for family justice.” The reforms represent a “healthy development” that will “call out” areas of concern while protecting confidentiality.

The changes follow a two-year “transparency pilot” launched on 30 January 2023 in the family courts of Cardiff, Leeds, and Carlisle. Under the scheme, judges issued ‘transparency orders’ allowing reporters to cover the proceedings under stringent rules safeguarding the anonymity of the children and families involved. The pilot later expanded to cover nearly half of England and Wales’ family courts.

While the reforms have been widely welcomed, some resistance remains. In 2023, Judge Haigh of Manchester family court voiced scepticism about the transparency initiative, calling family cases “deeply private” and suggesting reporting could serve only to “further… journalistic ambitions”.

Nonetheless, Sir Andrew remains optimistic. He said many judges initially resistant to the pilot were later “very favourably surprised” by its straightforward implementation. The reporting, he added, has already drawn attention to issues such as child neglect, Deprivation of Liberty Orders, and the abandonment of siblings, including the case of Baby Elsa, which revealed systemic failures over a seven-year period.

As family court transparency expands, concerns have also been raised about the ability of financially strained newsrooms to cover such cases comprehensively. Dawn Alford, executive director of the Society of Editors, stressed that local and regional journalism will play a crucial role.

It’s “vital coverage” that is “hugely important to the lives of so many,” she said, highlighting how such reporting can strengthen public trust in family courts and the role of the media.

Worked for same law firm

A pair of legal workers have been barred from the profession after they were jailed for dealing class A drugs.

Alexandra Ditcham and Jordan Heeley both worked as case managers for conveyancing outfit O’Neill Patient Solicitors when police raided their house in April 2021. The search turned up “items related to the use and sale of illegal drugs”, with a subsequent investigation determining that the pair “supplied or arranged to supply drugs for profit”.

Almost exactly two years later the duo pleaded guilty to supplying cocaine, with Heeley also admitting to “concealing, disguising, converting, transferring, or removing criminal property”, and were convicted at Crewe Magistrates’ Court. They received a 28-month prison sentence each.

At the time, the Manchester Evening News reported His Honour Judge Steven Everett as saying: “You have fantastic references from supportive family and friends, many professionals, many who are utterly dismayed you are in this position, that you are good people. But despite all of that, you made a financial decision that you were going to make some money selling cocaine.”

“It does not matter” he continued, that the pair only sold cocaine to “friends or acquaintances”, “you are selling to other people, cocaine users for profit and a pretty significant profit. In my judgement I do not think it was low level, this was a significant profit, making around £5,000 per month, effectively tax free.”

“You would have made £60,000 a year on top of your salaries. It just shows that the profits that can be made even if you are selling to a relatively small circle of friends and acquaintances.”

“I have taken into account your naivety, your stupidity but you are no different from many that appear before me and you have to be treated the same way.”

Now, however, the Solicitors Regulation Authority (SRA) has imparted its own sanction on the pair. Although they are not lawyers, those working in law firms like Ditcham and Heeley are still subject to the regulator’s oversight.

Whilst they can’t be struck off, they have both been disqualified from holding any employed position at a law firm without the SRA’s prior approval.

They have also been ordered to pay £600 of investigation costs each.

Trumped by cybersecurity, cost management and diversity

New research has suggested that sustainability is not a top priority for UK law firms.

A recent report surveying 100 employees in the UK legal sector found that only 51% of firms consider going green a priority. This ranks significantly lower compared to other top issues such as cybersecurity (92%), cost management (81%), and digital transformation (68%). Employee wellbeing and diversity and inclusion are also considered higher priorities.

The research, commissioned by carbon reduction consultancy Greenarc, also found that, although 78% of firms have appointed individuals to lead their green initiative, only 38% of those appointed feel they have “the complete knowledge they need to fulfil their roles effectively”. This is despite the fact that 66% of law firm employees believe their company has clear sustainability goals.

Chris Bingham, chairman at Greenarc commented:

“The UK legal sector clearly recognises the impact of sustainability on both its workforce and clients. Two-thirds of our respondents indicated that a firm’s sustainability credentials would be a deciding factor when choosing their next employer. Similarly, 73% of law firms recognise their sustainability efforts help engage new clients.”

He continued: “But while the sector recognises the importance of strong sustainability credentials, when push comes to shove, other demands take precedence.”

In recent years, law firms have made efforts to become more environmentally friendly by setting emission reduction targets, cutting down on air travel, and moving to energy-efficient offices.

However, some believe firms could do more—especially those representing clients in the fossil fuel industry. This has sparked protests outside several City firms’ offices, with some demonstrations even resulting in arrests.

326 applied

There will be 105 lawyers taking silk this year, up from the 95 who became KCs in 2024.

The latest competition attracted 326 applications, with 32% getting the nod for an appointment.

The new cohort consists of 72 men, with a success rate of 30%, and 33 women, with an acceptance rate of 39%. Among them, 18 individuals identified as being from an ethnic background other than white, representing 30% of non-white applicants. Additionally, eight new KCs have a disability, accounting for 42% of disabled applicants.

There was just one solicitor appointed this year from the five who applied, co-head of the India Group at A&O Shearman Sheila Ahuja.

The process of appointing new silks is overseen by the KC Appointments body which assesses aspiring silks on a range of criteria including: advocacy work, cases of substance and complexity, understanding and using the law, and working with others.

Monisha Shah, chair of the selection panel, said:

“I would like to offer my congratulations to all the new silks announced today. The selection process is a rigorous and demanding one and I believe that every one of these new silks will be a credit to their profession.”

£2,500 fine

A City solicitor who was arrested after failing to provide a breath sample did not lack integrity, a tribunal has found.

James Rafferty, a solicitor at Baker McKenzie, was pulled over in May 2023 after driving at speeds ranging between 65mph and 90mph whilst “wandering about the lanes”, with a police officer nothing that at one point he “almost collided with a bus”.

He was subsequently arrested for failing to provide a breath sample, and reported himself to the regulator shortly afterwards. He pleaded guilty in the criminal proceedings and was hit with a fine of £3,800 alongside a 17 month driving ban, reduced by 17 weeks upon completion of a rehabilitation course.

This was followed up by the Solicitors Regulation Authority (SRA) bringing the matter before a tribunal, claiming that Rafferty had showed a lack of integrity, and that it’s fining powers (which extend up to £25,000) were inadequate to deal with the case. Although the solicitor admitted that he failed to uphold public confidence in the profession and the rule of law and proper administration, he denied acting with a lack of integrity.

In a newly published judgment the tribunal sided with Rafferty, nothing that “it was not unusual for an offender to disagree with some aspects of the case against them”, and that he had “entered a guilty plea at the first opportunity and acted with complete transparency with his regulator throughout”.

Although his drink-driving was the result of a “significant error of judgment”, the solicitor had shown “deep remorse”, apologised, and accepted responsibility. His conduct was therefore “moderately serious”, warranting a fine of £2,500.

There was, however, no order made as to costs.

It was argued by Rafferty that he had made a previous offer to pay the SRA a fine of £10,000, which was rejected, and he therefore sought to recover just shy of £11,000 in costs. This was rejected on the basis that the case was “properly brought” and that the SRA had succeeded in part (albeit the parts that were already admitted).

The SRA’s application for £6,000 was similarly rejected, with the tribunal stating that the case had been brought partly “on the basis of its [the SRA’s] misapprehension that its £25,000 internal fining limit was insufficient and the case required the tribunal to determine sanction”.

Trump, Meta, crypto and more

Keeping up to date on developments in the commercial and business world is vital for securing training contracts and vacation schemes at top commercial law firms. Staying on top of these stories can sometimes feel overwhelming — especially if you don’t know where to look. To help you out, we’ve complied a list of five news stories affecting businesses this week, breaking down the key facts and suggesting how they might affect law firms and their clients.

1. Trump and tariffs

During his election campaign, Donald Trump claimed that “tariff” was “the most beautiful word in the dictionary.” Now that the American President has returned to office, economists have been discussing how Trump’s threatened trade policy might affect the US economy.

Tariffs are taxes on goods imported from abroad. Generally speaking, they increase the price of foreign-made goods, making them less attractive to consumers. Governments impose tariffs to promote domestic industries, raise revenue and exert geopolitical influence on other countries.

On the day of his inauguration, Trump threatened tariffs of up to 25% on imports from the US’s largest trading partners, Canada and Mexico. Trump has also warned of levies on Chinese imports and threatened to bring tariffs on EU products unless the bloc increased their consumption of American oil.

All this talk of tariffs has raised concerns around inflation. Central banks around the world have been battling inflation since it rose sharply in 2021. Tariffs are often seen as inflationary because they can cause higher consumer prices which may lead to increased wages and an inflationary wage-price spiral. Trump’s other policies, such as cutting taxes and reducing immigration, have also been associated with the risk of inflation. Other economists have pointed out that, as only 19% of the US economy is made up of external trade, tariffs may have a limited economic impact.

For law firms, this economic instability may dampen activity in certain departments, such as corporate M&A, as it becomes harder to accurately value target companies. Economic instability can also lead to more cautious deal-making, as businesses become hesitant to make large investments or take on additional debt in an unstable financial environment. However increased geopolitical tension may increase demand for legal services related to risk management, international disputes and sanctions compliance.

2. Pressure mounting on UK employers

Doubts around the UK economy have grown following a downturn in the labour market. Vacancies for permanent jobs in the UK declined at their fastest pace since 2020 at the end of last year according to a survey by KPMG and the recruitment firm REC. Figures also show that employers cut jobs following Rachel Reeves’ October Budget which saw businesses bear the brunt of £40bn in tax increases.

Kier Starmer’s Labour government have put pressure on employers by raising the National Living Wage to £12.21/hr for those over 21. In April 2025 costs for employers will jump again as the national insurance rate for employers rises to 15%, with the threshold for contributions reducing from £9,100 to £5,000 per employee. This is a significant cost which will disproportionately affect larger employers.

Additionally, the government’s Employment Rights Bill, expected to receive Royal Assent in mid 2025, expands day-one employment rights for workers and increases statutory sick pay, as well as restricting the use of zero-hours contracts and obliging employers to accommodate flexible working requests.

This pressure on employers may generate additional work for law firms with strong employment practices. The rising cost associated with employing workers may see many businesses looking to reduce their headcount and start redundancy processes. Additionally, the expanded set of employment rights workers are entitled to from the beginning of their employment could result in an increase in unfair dismissal claims brought against employers.

3. Zuckerberg ends Meta factchecking

In preparation for Donald Trump’s return to the White House, Mark Zuckerberg has announced that Meta is ending its third-party fact-checking programme in the US. Instead, the online platform will rely on users to flag misinformation.

The Facebook founder has stated his intention to “Allow more speech by lifting restrictions on some topics that are part of mainstream discourse and focusing out enforcement on illegal and high-severity violations.” He also claimed, “It’s time to get back to our roots around free expression on Facebook and Instagram.” Meta will now move to a “community notes” strategy of targeting misinformation, a strategy employed by to Elon Musk’s platform X.

Zuckerberg has stated that he has “No immediate plan” to end third-party fact checking and introduce community notes outside the US. Last year, regulation of social media stepped up elsewhere in the world as the EU’s Digital Services Act and the UK’s Online Safety Act came into force. These Acts require online platforms to tackle illicit content and safeguard users. Zuckerberg expressed disapproval of this regulation as he mentioned an “ever-increasing number” of European laws that were “institutionalising censorship and making it difficult to build anything innovative there.”

This development may affect law firms instructed by clients in the digital platform space as they navigate complying with hefty regulation in the EU and UK while keeping up with this trend towards “free expression” over the Atlantic.

4. Expansion of Gatwick

The UK government is poised to greenlight significant airport expansions, including Gatwick and Luton. Transport secretary Heidi Alexander is set to decide by late February on Gatwick’s £2.2bn project to activate its standby runway, increasing capacity to handle up to 75 million passengers annually by the 2030s up from 46.5 million.

Luton airport’s proposal to expand passenger numbers from 18 million to 32 million per year awaits a ruling by April, with plans promising thousands of jobs. Meanwhile, the contentious third runway at Heathrow remains in limbo, contingent on meeting strict environmental tests.

For law firms, particularly those with aviation or environmental practices, these developments signal a potential increased demand for regulatory guidance. The projects also present opportunities for those specialising in infrastructure finance, as private funding models gain traction. Aviation practices may see soaring interest as firms attempt to capitalise on the budding influx of commercial aircraft into London’s airways.

5. $TRUMP and $MELANIA — The Trumps launch memecoins

Donald and Melania Trump have thrown their hats into the cryptocurrency ring with the launch of their respective memecoins: $TRUMP and $MELANIA. Announced on Trump’s social media platform, Truth Social, the $TRUMP coin was launched on Friday January 17, 2025, debuting at $3. Over the weekend, the coin value surged to over $75, making the value of the coins in circulation worth more than $14bn.

Following closely on her husband’s heels, Melania Trump introduced the $MELANIA coin on January 19, 2025. Initially undervalued compared to $TRUMP, it quickly gained traction, trading at a high of $9.30 with a market capitalisation exceeding $10 billion.

What is a memecoin? As opposed to traditional coins, memecoins have no utility outside of their cultural value. They are a type of cryptocurrency based on internet memes, jokes, or trends. Unlike Bitcoin or Ethereum, which aim to solve practical problems or support decentralised applications, memecoins typically have minimal real-world use. Their value is primarily fuelled by community enthusiasm, social media trends, and celebrity backing.

This highly profitable coin launch follows the Trumpian agenda to reduce the regulatory burdens on crypto firms in the US. In December 2024, Bitcoin shattered its long-standing resistance to soar past $100,000, a rise catalysed by Trump’s explicit support for crypto during his presidential campaign. Central to Trump’s vision has been the appointment of Paul Atkins, a well-known advocate for market deregulation, as the head of the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC).

For law firms, this signals a potential boom in demand for crypto-related advice. International firms can expect an increase in cross-border compliance work, crypto investments, market manipulation claims, and blockchain-related transactions. As banks explore entering the crypto market and global regulations evolve, firms with expertise in fintech will be well-positioned to take advantage of the boom.

Rights group unsuccessfully argues animals are “imprisoned” in Zoo

Five elephants have lost their day in court after a Colorado judge ruled they’re not, in fact, people.

Elephants Missy, Kimba, Lucky, LouLou, and Jambo are residents of Cheyenne Mountain Zoo. An animal rights group argued that the elephants were being “imprisoned” and filed a habeas corpus claim on their behalf — a legal move traditionally reserved for humans challenging unlawful detention.

But the Colorado Supreme Court wasn’t having it. In a ruling that boiled down to “an elephant is not a person”, the court concluded that habeas corpus simply doesn’t apply to non-human animals.

“No matter how cognitively, psychologically, or socially sophisticated they may be,” State Supreme Court Justice Maria Berkenkotter said in her ruling, “an elephant is not a person.”

The Nonhuman Rights Project (NRP), the group behind the case, had pushed for the elephants to be sent to a sanctuary, arguing that they are emotionally complex, intelligent creatures who deserve their freedom. It claimed the elephants showed signs of “trauma, brain damage, and chronic stress.”

The zoo defended its care of the animals as top-notch and dismissed the lawsuit as “frivolous”, accusing NRP of “abusing court systems to fundraise” and calling the case a waste of time and money.

NRP, labelled the ruling a “clear injustice” and issued a statement saying:

“As with other social justice movements, early losses are expected as we challenge an entrenched status quo that has allowed Missy, Kimba, Lucky, LouLou, and Jambo to be relegated to a lifetime of mental and physical suffering.”

Across the Atlantic, the idea of granting legal personality to animals is gaining traction. City firm Simmons & Simmons recently made waves for its work with the Pacific Whale Fund and Ocean Vision Legal, drafting legislation that would recognise whales in the Pacific Islands as “sentient beings with intrinsic value.”

While the elephants at Cheyenne Mountain Zoo remain firmly classified as just animals for now, it seems the debate over the legal rights of animals isn’t going away any time soon.