Diary news plus insights, commentary and appointments from the legal world

30 May 2025

Editorial contact: fennell.edward@yahoo.com

SHORT THOUGHT FOR THE WEEK: THE ART OF THE AI DEAL?

The battle lines in the fight to acquire or protect creative works for AI training are moving rapidly as highlighted by this week’s news that the New York Times has agreed to a deal licensing its editorial content to Amazon for use in training AI models and platforms. This comes after a period when the newspaper resisted AI usage.

So this looks like a sign of things to come. As Dr. Kolochenko, a Fellow at the European Law Institute (ELI) and a Fellow at the British Computer Society (BCS), comments, “This is exactly what has been expected for a while: AI vendors will have no choice but to pay for high-quality content, which they desperately need to train their LLMs”

Meanwhile, points out .Dr. Kolochenko, Meta, for example, will have “To deal with sophisticated pre-screening of users’ posts that contain illicit materials, call to violence of discrimination, as well as posts with content that infringes copyright or trademarks. In sum, Meta’s situation is currently quite unenviable.”

So for all parties there are major challenges ahead. As Picasso said, “Bad artists copy. Good artists steal” and lawyers may have to distinguish between the two. (For more on this see our Legal Comment’ section below]

The LegalDiarist

In this edition

+ LEGAL DIARY OF THE WEEK

Fire Alarm

Jenner & Block Scores A Home Run

Going All Gooey

New Year’s Resolution

+ CONTRIBUTED ARTICLE OF THE WEEK

‘FAILURE TO PREVENT FRAUD’ MUST NOT FAIL says Tim Williamson

+ LEGAL COMMENT OF THE WEEK

on AI legislation, agri-business, joint tenancies, Starling Bank and Thames Water

+ LEGAL SECTOR APPOINTMENTS OF THE WEEK

at Opus2 and Lawfront

LEGAL DIARY OF THE WEEK

FIRE ALARM

Against a background of the Trump regime’s associates weighing up free speech in the UK and finding us wanting while concluding that a climate of intimidation now hangs over this once freedom-loving land, up-pops at Westminster Magistrates Court the trial of a man accused of racially or religiously aggravated intentional harassment, alarm, or distress.

So is this a critical moment in British law? Is the burning of a Quran taking us back to the days of the burning of heretics?

The issue in question is Section 5 of the Public Order Act and what it actually covers. Some might feel that this is the equivalent of that old puzzle of how many angels can dance on a pin’s head but a Humanists UK spokesperson was clear:

“This trial, regardless of its outcome, raises concerns about the potential return of blasphemy laws in all but name. The law was carefully crafted to allow for robust criticism of religion while protecting individuals from targeted hatred. We are concerned that prosecutors may be conflating causing subjective offence to causing objective harm. We urgently call on the Government to close any loopholes in the law that would allow blasphemous expression to be conflated with religiously motivated public disorder.“

The problem arises of course over any kind of incendiarism. As that other old saw goes, “First you start burning books, next you are burning people.”

As Lucy Connolly, the doyenne of incendiary influencing, found to her cost, encouraging people to burn down hotels can be costly. Best to put the fire out.

JENNER & BLOCK SCORES A HOME RUN

Meanwhile things have been moving forward in US firm Jenner & Block’s contretemps with the President of the USA over his Executive Order which targeted the firm (basically for actions that the President did not think were either big or beautiful).

Well, the judge in the case has now spoken out – and backed J&B. Indeed, backed them pretty much to the hilt observing that the President’s executive order violated the First, Fifth, and Sixth Amendments. In short the judge ruled comprehensively against the Administration, saying, “So the First, Fifth, and Sixth Amendments speak in unison here, all eyeing skeptically the administration’s attempt “to stifle any voice” Jenner and its clients “might wish to raise before the courts in protest.”

Other choice observations include that the EO pits firms’ “loyalty to client interests” against a competing interest in pleasing the President…it casts a chill over the whole of the legal profession, leaving lawyers around the country weighing the necessity of vigorous representation against the peril of crossing the federal government. The order’s chilling effect is uniquely harmful for its focus on pro bono work.”

Perhaps most tellingly of all the judge cast an eye on the painfully existential process that a number of top US law firms have been through in recent months – with few of them coming out of it with their reputations intact (Jenner & Block being the obvious exception).

“The serial executive orders targeting law firms have produced something of an organic experiment, control group and all, for how firms react to the orders and how they might escape them,” said the judge. Over the course of that experiment, several firms of (presumably) ordinary firmness have folded rather than face similar executive orders. Indeed, it appears to take extraordinary firmness to resist. And the experiment has shown what folding entails – compromising speech.”

In all the chaotic hurly burly of recent months in the USA such an important case might be overlooked or forgotten about. Clearly that would be a mistake.

GOING ALL GOOEY

Following the triumph last week of former student actor Walter Merricks in the Mastercard case before the Competition Appeals Tribunal (which resulted in a £200 million settlement for customers of the credit card company) we now have another public hero in the shape of Roger Kaye KC.

Kaye is acting as the class representative for UK advertisers who paid Google more than necessary, either directly or through intermediaries, for search advertising for over a decade. It is estimated that the aggregated award could amount to around £25 billion. So it’s big.

“This case marks a significant step in reestablishing a fair and competitive landscape for all advertisers,” comments Kaye who enjoys the advanatge of having more than over 25 years’ experience sitting as a deputy High Court judge “Monopolising the advertising space to the point of abuse cannot continue.”

Backing up Kaye is a team of supporters including what are called ‘significant expert advisers’, including Keystone AI and Andrea Coscelli, the former head of the Competitions and Markets Authority. Also adding weight to the arguments is rofessor Andrew Stephen of Said Business School, University of Oxford.

Although other people have tried to take on the behemoth that is Google, Kaye’s application will be the first, apparently to include a stand-alone claim seeking damages for ‘abusive exploitative behaviour’. The argument is that through doing canny deals – such as with Apple – Google was able to ensure its prominent position on the company’s web browser, Safari, and thereby exclude rival services. The result? World domination (almost) . Yes, there’s a lot to play for.

NEW YEAR’S RESOLUTION

It’s been a big week for family law professionals with over 400 of them coming along to the two- day annual Resolution Conference in Birmingham with a view to driving forward ‘a constructive way of resolving family law matters’.

“Resolution is a hugely important organisation which stands for a collaborative and constructive approach to family law,” commented Adam Maguire, a partner in the family law team at Clarke Willmott LLP, who chaired the conference. “Our community of family justice professionals work incredibly hard to produce better outcomes for separating couples and their children and conferences like this continue to inspire our work.”

This year’s event was attended by Sir Andrew McFarlane, the President of the Family Division of the High Court of Justice in England and Wales – not too surprising given that it is recognised as the biggest family law event in the UK with two days of talks, workshops and events. Resolution itself has over 6,500 members and 39 regional groups across England and Wales.

“It truly was an honour to chair the two-day event, delivering the opening address and welcoming over 400 family law colleagues from across the country to Birmingham,” said Maguire,. “I am very proud of the collaborative, vibrant and active region here in the Midlands and some of Birmingham’s best and brightest helped make the event a success.”

As the organisations points out, Resolution works to raise awareness of family law issues and the benefits of constructive and non-confrontational approaches to family disputes. “All our policy and campaigns work is informed by the experiences of our members – family justice professionals – and their clients, and is driven by a network of member-led committees,” it says.

CONTRIBUTED ARTICLE OF THE WEEK

‘FAILURE TO PREVENT FRAUD’ MUST NOT FAIL says Tim Williamson

The new obligation on ‘businesses’ (in the broadest sense) to prevent fraud applies to large, incorporated bodies and partnerships that meet two of three criteria:

– more than 250 employees,

– a turnover over £36 million,

– or total assets exceeding £18 million

and it applies to the entire organisation, including subsidiaries, regardless of location.

The likely impact of the Act will be that it softly prompts a shift in behaviour among senior management, much like we saw with the Bribery Act, which took effect in 2011, where prosecutions for breaches have been few and far between. The Bribery Act got people to change how they acted because they were concerned about the consequences of getting caught. Now, it’s standard across industries to work with clients who have a set of policies and procedures in place to tackle bribery and corruption.It will now be interesting to see how things pan out over the next six months. One would expect the regulators – and it is clear that this will be the Serious Fraud Office or the police at the form of the Crown Prosecution Servic – , to take their time to identify the worst offenders, because they will want to ensure any initial prosecutions pack a punch.

I expect that the new rules will certainly create risk for businesses, certainly for larger in scope businesses, but it will probably not manifest itself in prosecution for some time, certainly not unless one is the worst offenders. But what it will do is ensure or improve the chances of organisational change being affected in many different sectors, because it will be considered ‘the right thing to do’.

 Tim Williamson is a lawyer with the regulatory team, Clarke Willmott

For more on how businesses can get ready for the new regulations. Go to:

Clarke Willmott’s Guide to Getting Business Ready for New Regulation on Corporate Offences and Fraud

LEGAL COMMENT OF THE WEEK

TOPIC: The UK Government’s controversial position over AI and the potential for “theft” of creative works 

COMMENT BY: Caleb Bester, trainee solicitor, Payne Hicks Beach

“The Government is attempting to walk a delicate high wire, by appealing to both an emerging AI industry as well as the crucial creative industries in the UK. In practice is it possible to ride both horses?

 By indicating its preference for an ‘opt out’ scenario for copyright holders in relation to text and data mining, the Government has demonstrated its willingness to bend copyright protections to indulge the development of AI and to the detriments of the creative arts.

Moreover, in its latest rejection of Baroness Kidron’s amendment in the House of Lords, which would have provided greater protections to copyright holders, the Government puts itself at risk of losing any credibility it may have had as a fair mediator between these two competing interest groups.

In short, in seeking to reconcile its desire to become both a hub of AI innovation and a cultural superpower, it risks appeasing neither, and driving both away from Britain’s shores.

This conflict should not have come as a surprise to the Government. Better engagement earlier on might have resulted in a compromise position acceptable to both sides.”

TOPIC: The expectation that thousands of farmers will benefit from a £30 million boost to payments received for nature-friendly farming practices under the Higher Level Stewardship (HLS) scheme.

COMMENT BY: Richard Broadbent, environmental lawyer, Freeths

“It is good to see the Government putting more investment into HLS payments to help pay for landscape scale nature recovery. It is essential if we are to tackle biodiversity losses in this country that we properly reward farmers for nature recovery schemes and ensure that the cost benefit analysis of nature versus other farming opportunities makes proper sense. As for the debate on food production and nature recovery, the National Food Strategy, led by Henry Dimbleby, found that stopping farming on 21% of currently farmed land would only reduce food production by 3%. Done well, therefore, it is possible to maintain food production levels whilst also investing in nature recovery.”

TOPIC: The possibility that the Chancellor of the Exchequer could scale back the environmental land management (ELM) scheme when new departmental budgets are announced shortly

COMMENT BY: Rupert Burchett Partner, Payne Hicks Beach

“Anybody could be forgiven for thinking that the Government is waging some sort of ideological war on the rural community. In the brief time in which they have been in power, amongst other things we have seen the inheritance tax changes, the sudden closure of the Sustainable Farming Incentive scheme, the changes to National Insurance, the changes to the double cab pick-up benefit in kind rules, the proposals to amend the firearms licensing rules, the failure to issue General Licence 45, the failure to issue trail hunting licences on Ministry of Defence land and the proposals to amend the Hunting Act 2004.

Successive governments have told farmers to diversify their income streams, so many have changed the way they manage their land to put a greater focus on environmental diversity and nature recovery in part on the basis of the support available from the ELM schemes. If today’s news proves to be true, cutting these schemes would be a further blow to a sector already operating on the tightest of margins.”

TOPIC: The severance of Ruth Langsford’s joint tenancy on the £3.6 million property she shares with husband Eamonn Holmes, amid ongoing divorce proceedings.

COMMENT BY: Emma Spruce, Barrister at 4PB

“Severance of a joint tenancy does not govern how the matrimonial home will be treated either during the currency of divorce and financial proceedings themselves nor in the outcome of those proceedings.

While the divorce is ongoing, it is very difficult indeed to ‘force’ a sale of the home as the home will need to be factored into the financial separation without prejudicing either party’s arguments.

Ultimately and at the conclusion of the process of separating the couple’s financial ties, if either party wishes to remain in the home, there would ordinarily need to be sufficient resource elsewhere for the other party to appropriately re-house. It is worth noting that in the majority of cases (where resources are more likely to be more limited than with Holmes and Langsford), there will not be sufficient resource for both parties to be adequately housed without necessitating a sale of the home.”

TOPIC: The drop in Starling Bank’s annual profit following a fine for weak financial crime controls and setting aside cash to cover issues with Covid bounceback loans.

COMMENT BY: Katie Wheatley Partner, Bindmans

“The impact of regulatory action by the Financial Conduct Authority on Starling Bank is clear to see in the drop in the company’s pre-tax profit. In December Starling Bank was fined almost £29million by the Financial Conduct Authority for lax anti money laundering and financial crime controls. It set aside a further £28.2 million to cover a group of Covid bounceback loans that it agreed to remove from the Government Guarantee.

Starling Bank is not the first bank to be hit with fines for inadequate controls. In 2024 Metro bank was fined £16 million for inadequate AML controls and in 2021 Nat West was prosecuted and fined £264.8 million for failing to comply with money laundering regulations in connection with cash deposits.

These cases demonstrate clearly why all those involved in financial services need to have up to date systems and controls that are well understood and applied by all employees.” 

TOPIC: The record fine imposed on Thames Water by Ofwat over pollution and dividends

COMMENT BY: Trevor Francis, Regulatory Investigations Partner, Blackfords LLP

“The recent Ofwat fine imposed on Thames Water serves as a stark reminder of the escalating regulatory and reputational risks associated with environmental non-compliance. For companies seeking legal advice, this enforcement action underscores the serious consequences that can arise from environmental breaches, particularly in heavily regulated sectors such as water utilities.

Ofwat’s £122.7m fine against Thames Water—stemming from failures in meeting customer service commitments amid ongoing pollution concerns—reflects a broader trend of stricter enforcement and diminishing tolerance for systemic environmental mismanagement. This is not an isolated incident; rather, it signals a regulatory environment increasingly focused on holding companies accountable for both operational and environmental failings.

From a legal risk management perspective, companies must now view environmental compliance as a core part of their governance obligations. Prosecuting authorities and regulators alike are adopting a more proactive stance, with fines, public scrutiny, and potential criminal liability, very much on the agenda. Directors of companies in the Environmental sector would be well advised to invest in robust compliance programs, conduct regular environmental audits, and ensure transparent reporting mechanisms.

Moreover, the reputational damage from such enforcement actions can be significant and enduring, impacting stakeholder trust, share price, and long-term contract opportunities. In Thames Water’s case, the fine compounds existing scrutiny from other environmental regulators such as the Environment Agency, amplifying the cumulative impact on the company’s credibility and financial stability.

For companies across all sectors, the Thames Water penalty reinforces the importance of proactive legal and regulatory risk assessments, especially where environmental harm or customer impact is foreseeable. Legal advice should be integrally involved in shaping ESG (Environmental, Social, and Governance) strategies and crisis response plans to mitigate exposure and enhance resilience in an increasingly unforgiving regulatory climate.”

LEGAL SECTOR APPOINTMENTS OF THE WEEK

OPUS2

Tiama Hanson-Drury has been appointed as the chief product and technology officer (CPTO) at Opus2, the legal software and services provider. Prior to joining Opus 2, Hanson-Drury served as chief product officer at Minna Technologies, where she led a strategic growth plan resulting in an acquisition by Mastercard.

She was recently recognised as a 2025 CPO Awards winner by Products That Count and has a reputation for building product growth engines, client-centric innovation, and applying AI not only to transform day-to-day work but to drive revenue. She will now head Opus 2’s global product and technology organisation, playing a key role in the company’s product advisory board and client advisory board.

Hanson-Drury will work closely with the established company leaders Robert Cannon, who will step into the role of principal engineer, and Raymond Bentinck, who will assume a product leadership role for hearings and arbitral institutions.

LAWFRONT

Rachel Street has been appointed by Lawfront, the legal services group, as its Chief People Officer. With experience in a broad range of HR disciplines including talent acquisition and development, employee engagement, diversity and inclusion, and employee relations, Street will play a key role in supporting Lawfront’s network of regional firms as the group continues its growth journey. (As reported in the LegalDiary last week, the group has recently acquired Trethowans).

“I’m delighted to be joining Lawfront as CPO at such an exciting time,” said Street.” As the group continues to grow at pace, it has never been more important to ensure there is a steadfast focus on creating an exceptional place to work.

“I have a firm belief, that with an environment of trust and growth underpinned by a supportive and high performing culture, we can create positive workplaces which support people to achieve”

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