EDWARD FENNELL’s LEGAL DIARY
Diary news plus insights, commentary and appointments from the legal world
26 June 2026
Editorial contact: fennell.edward@yahoo.com
SHORT THOUGHT FOR THE WEEK: Here’s Hoping
In a bold statement this week as he previewed this September’s inaugural ‘City Law Senior Leaders Conference’ (see more below) Colin Passmore, Chair of the City of London Law Society, declared,“London is the world’s leading centre for legal services, and the strength of City law is inseparable from the strength of the UK economy and its standing on the global stage.”
The problem is that ten years on from Brexit and after a decade of political instability (and political farce courtesy of Boris Johnson and Liz Truss) the UK’s ‘standing on the global stage’ is looking much diminished (and let’s not even talk about defence spending).
Whether a new Prime Minister will make any difference is hard to judge. By September (when the conference is held) we might have a better idea and a presentation is promised ‘from a senior Government official’ on ‘the UK’s growth agenda and the importance of City law to the UK’s competitiveness and global position’.
At this point all we can do is hope. But, like Scotland’s chance of progressing to the next round of the World Cup, that hope might be hanging by a thread.
The LegalDiarist
In this edition
+ LEGAL DIARY OF THE WEEK
Risky Business Says Clyde & Co.
London Lawyers to Fight Back?
Law Departments’ Benchmark Report
Juries Out – Is this Starmer’s Legacy?
Heated Exchange
+ CONTRIBUTED ARTICLE OF THE WEEK
Pride, prejudice and the prompt: what AI is teaching the legal profession about inclusion
by John McElroy
+ LEGAL COMMENT OF THE WEEK
The World Cup and the rise in domestic abuse, the FCA to assess law firms, Taylor Swift vs. Maren Flagg, review of EdTech, the carbon budget, regulating lawyers, SubHub and freezing orders.
LEGAL DIARY OF THE WEEK
Risky Business Says Clyde & Co.
What’s the mood right now amongst law firms’ larger clients? Given that there are major wars happening in Eastern Europe and in the Gulf plus a white knuckle ride on the AI helter skelter you might expect a certain degree of unease in many Board Rooms. And you would be right.
“Risk now sits at the centre of how organisations operate, driven by the increasing interaction between geopolitical, technological and regulatory pressures,” says Kevin Sutherland, Chair of Global Practice Groups & Global Head of Aviation at Clyde & Co, “Those that are adapting most effectively are integrating resilience and governance into core decision-making, so they can respond quickly and maintain momentum as conditions evolve.”
Sutherland was referencing the findings of the latest edition of the firm’s Corporate Risk Radar, based on a survey of 700 senior decision-makers across eight regions and ten sectors and what they revealed was sharp year-on-year increases across every major risk category. “We are living in a world where you can wake up in the morning and face a complete shift in the geopolitical situation,” pointed out Jan Spittka, Partner at Clyde & Co. “Organisations need to reduce their dependency on providers and suppliers in any one region. But above all, it is important first to accept this reality, and then to try to become more agile in dealing with it.”
Inevitably AI is one of the biggest disruptors. With almost 80% of leaders saying AI and new technology generally will significantly influence their business over the next five years.
“All businesses are trying to adapt to AI as quickly as they can, but the speed at which it changes makes that a big challenge,” said Tim Crockford, Partner. “When you ask whether organisations have a mature AI governance framework in place, some will say yes today, but that will be out of date by tomorrow. That’s why the governance framework that comes with AI needs to keep up with the evolution of the technology, and organisations need to understand when it’s being used, how it’s being used, and have steps in place to prevent misuse.”
So, on top of that, regulatory failures may increasingly translate into reputational damage, investor pressure and loss of trust. “Most serious regulatory breaches arise from failures to disclose,” explained Rebecca Kelly, Partner “Companies face very short timeframes to disclose and act in the company’s best interests. The reputational risk is equally significant, as consequences can be immediate and played out publicly.”
So, quite a lot to ponder.
London Lawyers to Fight Back?
Put it in your diaries now – Tuesday 15 September for The City of London Law Society (CLLS) and the City of London Corporation’s summit for senior leaders in the legal sector.
The theme will be ‘The London Law Imperative: Potential, pressures and priorities shaping City Law’ but it is a challenge to read the tone of the event.
Is it assertive or is it defensive? The venue is the Guildhall but is that relying too much on heritage rather than a bolder broader vision offered by somewhere further down the river?
“Across markets, technology, regulation, and talent, City firms are navigating rising complexity while working to sustain performance and client trust,” say the CLLS. “Structured as a senior peer exchange – a series of practical discussions rather than set-piece speeches – the programme will cover the most pressing issues for firm leaders: the changing business of City law; financial performance; the rise of private equity; the continued expansion of US firms in London; the rule of law and responsible practice; how artificial intelligence will, and will not, reshape the law firm model; and the talent equation – culture, wellbeing, career pathways and the expectations of a new generation of lawyers.”
Amongst these topics the most challenging, maybe, is the expansion of US firms in London.It is now almost a commonplace to refer to the traditional Magic Circle firms as an elite from the past with five American firms in London now usurping the title. Trying to roll back that reality – even in the Guildhall – might be a fool’s game.
Law Departments’ Benchmark Report
If you have a spare half hour under a sunshade this weekend (or maybe combined with watching England v. Panama for an occasional diversion) then it is time well spent curling up with the new ‘2026 ACC Law Department Benchmarking Report’ published by the Association of Corporate Counsel in conjunction with Major, Lindsey & Africa.
Perhaps what is most striking is the declining proportion of company revenue being spent on legal teams. Hence the total legal spend as a percentage of company revenue – a key measure of legal cost efficiency – hit a six-year low in 2026, dropping to 0.43% from a previous high of 0.63%. Alongside that figure – and complementary to it – is that the number of company employees supported by each lawyer has risen steadily. It has now reached a median of 367 meaning that legal teams are supporting a larger client base relative to their size
The underlying idea behind the report is that the legal department in corporate organisations has evolved from a traditional cost center into a strategic business partner meaning that it will be defined by its efficiency, value, and operational agility.
By drawing on comprehensive data from 576 legal departments across 45 countries, the report tracks critical metrics, including legal spend as a percentage of revenue, lawyer-to-staff ratios, functional oversight, and law firm use. “By providing these standardized benchmarks, we hope to empower legal leaders to move beyond anecdotal evidence and lead their departments with objective, data-driven precision.”
Sounds like a good goal.
Juries Out – Is this Starmer’s Legacy?
One of the many paradoxes of the premiership of Kier Starmer KC is that despite being a barrister he seemed incapable of making an argument compellingly. His track record of flip-flopping and U-turning might have suggested an ability to see both sides of an argument but somehow whichever side he was supporting he always seemed unconvinced.
And that might apply to jury trials as well.
Of course, he and Lord Chancellor David Lammy alike claimed to be in favour of the move away from jury trials. But did they really mean it?
We might never find out but with a non-barrister arriving shortly in Downing Street it will be interesting to see where the debate goes next. Just on cue the latest figures from the Ministry of Justice (MoJ), reveal that there has been a slight decrease in the number of open cases in the Crown Court but in the magistrates’ court there has been a 2% increase on Q4 2025 and an 11% increase on the previous year.
Yiu can interpret this as you will. The Bar Council, for example, suggest , “The new data casts serious doubts over the government’s plans to move cases from the Crown Court to the magistrates’ court under its proposals to restrict jury trials.” The Government still seems to be arguing the opposite.
It will presumably fall to the new Prime Minister to take the final decision. Economic factors will probably drive the choicein a Manchester-ish sort of way. Meanwhile, the Bar Council has been calling for more funding for ‘our overstretched and resource starved justice system, tackling inefficiencies to reduce the court backlogs’. But who do they have to convince?
Heated Exchange
It was baking at Baker McKenzie’s office in Bishopsgate last night as, notwithstanding the temperature, the firm held a farewell bash for Monica Kurnatowska, a former partner in the Employment & Compensation group in London and a long standing member of the firm’s cross practice global re-organisations team.
Along with her recognition as a ‘leading individual’ by both The Legal 500 and Chambers UK Kurnatowski was particularly distinguished for her expertise in trade union matters.
Maybe that’s what accounts for the popularity at the party of songs by Madness – notably the rendition of Baggy Trousers – as performed by well-known City party band the Super Tenants who brought to the event an appropriate level of cool.
According to the band itself ‘They’ve signed too many NDAs to name drop everyone, but Royalty, international celebrities and the world’s biggest companies have all experienced the thrill of a Super Tenants party.’ So, in every sense, a warm send-off.
CONTRIBUTED ARTICLE OF THE WEEK
Pride, prejudice and the prompt: what AI is teaching the legal profession about inclusion
by John McElroy
AI is no longer a future issue for the legal profession; it is already reshaping how firms research, draft, recruit and manage risk. The regulatory message is also becoming clearer: firms may adopt AI, but they remain responsible for governing it properly, with leadership oversight, policies, risk assessment and monitoring.
Pride Month offers a useful lens through which to consider that challenge, because it asks whether the systems we are building reflect fairness in practice, not simply in principle.
Why Pride is a relevant AI lens
The central point is not that AI is inherently biased, but that it can replicate historic assumptions if trained on unbalanced data or deployed without proper scrutiny. Recent work on AI’s impact on LGBTQ+ people highlights risks around inaccurate representation, privacy and discriminatory outcomes where systems are not built or monitored carefully.
A 2026 GLAAD report found that AI systems can reinforce harmful stereotypes, suppress LGBTQ+ voices and enable discriminatory outcomes when trained on incomplete or biased data. It also warns that gaps in representation and safeguards at the model development stage can scale across multiple downstream uses, embedding those risks into everyday tools and decision-making.
For the legal profession, that matters because inclusion is no longer just a people or culture question; it is increasingly a question of system design, procurement and governance.
The legal and practical point
There is a concrete UK compliance angle here. The ICO has warned that some AI recruitment tools inferred protected characteristics and included features that could enable discriminatory filtering, underlining the need for lawful, fair and transparent use of AI in employment contexts.
UK GDPR also treats data revealing sexual orientation as special category data, meaning it attracts enhanced protection and requires organisations to identify both an Article 6 lawful basis and an Article 9 condition before processing it.
More broadly, the EU AI framework treats certain AI uses in employment and other fundamental-rights-sensitive areas as high-risk, reflecting a wider regulatory movement toward accountability, documentation and human oversight.
What firms should do
Ask basic but important questions: what is the tool doing, what data is it using, what assumptions are built into it, and who is accountable if it gets something wrong? The SRA’s guidance points to governance, risk and impact assessments, training, and ongoing monitoring as core controls.
Inclusion should therefore be treated as part of AI risk management, not as a separate box-ticking exercise.
Pride Month is a useful reminder that progress is not self-executing. If tomorrow’s legal tools are trained on yesterday’s assumptions, fairness will depend on whether firms are willing to test, challenge, and govern them properly.
John McElroy is Co-head of Dispute Resolution at Fieldfisher and President of the London Solicitors Litigation Association
LEGAL COMMENT OF THE WEEK
TOPIC: The World Cup and its potential for an increase in Domestic Abuse leads the Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) to urge the public to look out for ‘loved ones’
COMMENT BY: Nick Gova, Head of Family Spector, Constant and Williams
“The link between major sporting events and a spike in domestic violence is well recognised, and the CPS is right to urge the public to look out for their loved ones who could be more vulnerable to abusers during the World Cup.
“Football itself is not the cause of abuse, but heightened emotions, alcohol and entrenched controlling behaviours can act as triggers where abuse already exists. For many victims, what should be a shared national moment instead becomes a period of heightened fear and risk, particularly where late kick‑off times leave individuals isolated and without immediate access to support.
“From a legal perspective, it is critical to remember that domestic abuse is not limited to physical violence. The law recognises a broad spectrum of behaviour, including coercive and controlling conduct, which can escalate quickly in volatile environments.
“Victims and those around them should feel empowered to report matters to the police and seek urgent protection through injunctions such as non‑molestation orders where risk arises. The courts are well‑versed in dealing with these applications swiftly where necessary.”
TOPIC: The new carbon budget (designed to reduce emissions by 87% from 1990 levels by 2040) which has been approved by the House of Commons.
COMMENT BY: Steve Gummer, Head of Net Zero, Sharpe Pritchard
“The Seventh Carbon Budget matters. Targets matter. But targets are not enough without delivery. If the incoming administration wants an agenda for growth, security and infrastructure, this carbon budget provides it.
“The debate on net zero is in danger of being framed around the wrong question. Carbon budgets are not simply a question of Whitehall control or the level of subsidy. They are certainly not left versus right. Properly understood, they are a legal and commercial signal that Britain intends to reduce its exposure to volatile fossil fuel markets and build the infrastructure needed for cheaper, cleaner and more secure power.
“Recent global shocks have shown the real control risk: when Britain relies on imported fossil fuels, international events can land directly on household bills and business costs. Renewables already on the system have helped reduce the gas Britain needs to buy. That is not theoretical net zero; it is energy security in pounds and pence.
“The Seventh Carbon Budget is important because investors, developers and public authorities need statutory certainty. But a target is not a delivery plan. The next phase has to be treated as a national infrastructure programme: faster consenting, bankable revenue models, clearer grid access, more storage and flexibility, and anticipatory investment in transmission and distribution.
“We also need to resist the easy slogan that more North Sea drilling is the answer to Britain’s energy problems. Around 83% of UK oil is exported, new output is sold into international markets, and further North Sea production would not insulate households or businesses from global prices. If we are serious about cutting prices, improving security of supply and decarbonising the economy, we need a much faster rollout of the grid so Britain can actually use the renewable power it generates.
“That must be accompanied by stronger interconnection with our neighbours, so we can access low-cost clean electricity not only when the wind blows or the sun shines in Britain, but when it is abundant in France and, as new links come forward, Germany and the wider European system — and export our own surplus when conditions are favourable here.
“The legal framework has held. The delivery framework now has to catch up. A credible carbon budget without grid rollout is an ambition stuck in the queue.”
TOPIC: The Number of Crypto Wallet Freezing Orders (“CWFrOs”) and Crypto Wallet Forfeiture Orders (“CWFOs”) issued by the Serious Fraud Office (“SFO”) and HM Revenue and Customs (“HMRC”) since their introduction in April 2024
COMMENT BY: Thomas Cattee, partner and head of the White-Collar Crime department, Gherson Solicitors
“Though the numbers remain small again this year, they do remain just as striking with HMRC using its powers more often. This is particularly interesting given the SFO’s Business Plan 2026-2027 making reference to developing and maximising cryptoasset investigation capabilities.”
“It is important to remember that these powers represent only one small tool in the UK’s law enforcement agencies’ armoury and only suit certain investigations. However, these FOI results demonstrate that HMRC has again been far been more readily utilising these new powers.“
“When comparing both agencies use of Account Freezing and Forfeiture Orders, we had previously noted how the SFO by nature only investigates a few large and complex cases and this could be one of the reasons that the number of CWFrO and CWFO used by the SFO is smaller.”
TOPIC: The new ICO report, ‘Edtech examined’ which details the findings from a programme of audits carried out during 2024 and 2025 with 28 edtech providers, whose products are widely used across primary and secondary schools in the UK.
COMMENT BY: Ane Vernon, Dispute Resolution Partner, Payne Hicks Beach
“The ICO’s findings in its “Edtech examined” report demonstrate the government’s awareness to risks associated with children’s personal data being processed in educational settings.
“It appears the sensitivity is justified, the ICO’s audit having identified compliance gaps ranging from insufficiently detailed contracts with schools, weak application of data limitation principles, and gaps in Data Protection Impact Assessment.
“The result of the audit was 596 recommendations for improvement being made to edtech providers. The volume and nature of issues identified is hugely concerning particularly considering that the audit related to just 28 edtech providers. The total number of edtech providers is far higher and one must assume that the providers not subject to the audit have similar issues with their data processing practices.
“The ICO says that they are considering a new edtech code and it is clear that it is needed urgently to regulate and drive change in this rapidly growing sector. This is particularly important given that data protection litigation involving EdTech is already ongoing in the United States, raising the prospect of similar legal challenges emerging in the UK. The risk of litigation is further heightened by continued pressure from parents and campaigners.”
TOPIC: The IP row between Taylor Swift and Maren Flagg. over the rights to the title ‘The Life of a Showgirl’
COMMENT BY: Marcela Carvalho, Trade Mark Attorney (Associate), Marks & Clerk
“Who knew the life of a showgirl sometimes involves trade mark battles?
Taylor Swift is known for taking her intellectual property seriously and has vigorously protected her albums and song titles worldwide. Her attempt to register the title of her latest record, “The Life of a Showgirl,” has proven challenging, and she is also facing a trade mark infringement lawsuit filed by a performer named Maren Flagg. Flagg owns a US trade mark registration for “Confessions of a Showgirl” and has used this brand for 12 years, performing a live cabaret show based on her life as a showgirl.
On the registration front, a US examiner has taken the view that Taylor’s mark is confusingly similar to Flagg’s due to the shared “OF A SHOWGIRL” wording, and that Flagg should be protected from “adverse commercial impact due to use of a similar mark by a newcomer” – an interesting choice of words to describe one of the biggest pop stars of our time.Taylor’s legal team has secured suspension of the application, placing the matter on hold while they address the more pressing infringement lawsuit brought by Flagg in the US.Flagg’s attorneys’ central argument is that the use of “The Life of a Showgirl” is likely to result in reverse confusion.
In other words, Taylor’s use of the brand could overwhelm Flagg’s earlier registration for “Confessions of a Showgirl”, leading the public to believe that “the original is the imitation”.The case is attracting headlines again following a recent amendment to the claim by Flagg’s attorneys, which mainly concerns technical issues rather than the reverse confusion argument itself.
Flagg’s theatre performances under “Confessions of a Showgirl” have expanded into a book, a podcast, and online video content. On paper, there are clear similarities between these products and Taylor’s “The Life of a Showgirl”.However, a relevant point raised by Swift’s attorneys is that the wording “OF A SHOWGIRL” is diluted in the marketplace. They cite examples such as “Portrait of a Showgirl”, “The Last Showgirl”, and “Confessions of a Vegas Showgirl”. This supports an argument that Flagg’s rights are not sufficiently strong to challenge Taylor’s use of “The Life of a Showgirl”.
As a UK trade mark attorney, I wonder whether Flagg will be able to successfully argue that any potential association with Swift’s album would have an adverse commercial impact on her offering. It is equally possible that Flagg may financially benefit from the (arguable) similarities between the trade marks.It is also interesting that Flagg’s concerns may, in part, be amplified by her own lawsuit. If the lesser-known performer is worried about an association between the parties’ brands, bringing a trade mark lawsuit against Taylor Swift may not be the most effective way to avoid it. No doubt Taylor’s team will make this point as well, although US courts will ultimately decide the matter, unless, of course, the showgirls reach a settlement behind the curtains.”
TOPIC: The announcement by HM Treasury that the FCA will assess the integrity of lawyers and accountants when it becomes the sole regulator of AML and counter-terrorism financing for professional services providers in the U.K. as well as assessing their competence and history of compliance.
COMMENT BY: Charles Herbert, Partner, Spencer West LLP
“The proposal that lawyers will face fitness and propriety tests under the FCA’s AML regime should not cause the profession undue concern as to whether it will be able to meet the necessary standard. The FCA guidance (at FIT 1.3.1B of the FCA Handbook) confirms the most important considerations will be (i) honesty, integrity and reputation (ii) competence and capability and (iii) financial soundness. The courts have already stipulated that the standard of honesty required for solicitors is that they may be “trusted to the ends of the earth” (Bolton v Law Society [1993] EWCA Civ 32) and this underpins SRA regulation.
The significant concerns which have been raised by the Law Society regarding sector specific supervision, cost, regulatory overlap and an unproven case for expansion are however clearly warranted. Compliance officers (COLPS) and MLROs within law firms, particularly smaller firms where resource is limited, already face a significant regulatory burden. They now face additional regulatory and administrative requirements and cost where the efficacy of the proposed changes is very much in question. The government meanwhile has said both that it deems law firms to be a high-risk area and that it will develop “further detail on the operation of these arrangements” by working with stakeholders. It remains to be seen the extent to which the genuine concerns of the profession and the Law Society are taken into account in this area.”
TOPIC: The fine of almost £900,00 and compensation for customers imposed on resale site StubHub UK over its ‘hidden fees’
COMMENT BY: Nick Eziefula, Partner Simkins LLP
“The CMA’s decision to fine StubHub and order customer refunds is good news for ticket buyers, and sends a clear message that so-called ‘drip pricing’ will not be tolerated.
“Tickets for popular events can command eye-watering prices and are often snapped up in minutes, driving determined fans to search for relisted tickets such as those available on StubHub. Faced with the prospect of missing out, some fans may feel they have little choice but to proceed with a purchase, even where the price has unexpectedly increased beyond what was initially advertised.
“A desperate consumer is a vulnerable one. The CMA has clearly recognised this and has taken action to protect ticket buyers.
“Pricing must be clear, complete, accurate and displayed upfront. Businesses that rely on hidden fees and last-minute price increases risk enforcement action, customer refunds and lasting reputational damage.”
We hope that you’ve been interested or amused by something in this week’s LEGAL DIARY. If so do send on to colleagues.
And please continue sending your ‘Diary-type’ stories, insights legal comment and appointments to
fennell.edward@yahoo.com