Edward Fennell’s LEGAL DIARY
Diary news plus insights, commentary and appointments from the legal world
8 August 2025
Editorial contact: fennell.edward@yahoo.com
SHORT THOUGHT FOR THE WEEK: Lost its way home?
The end of Section 21 Notices (that is landlords being able to evict their tenants almost on a whim) featured significantly in the Labour election manifesto. It wasn’t important just as a significant change in the law but was also emblematic of a new set of values and priorities in how society should work. Most notably, ordinary people were going to be given more protection against those who lorded it over them.
So it is just another sign of how accident-prone the Starmer Government is that the homelessness minister Rushanara Ali has been forced to resign over her own conduct as a landlord. This was not because she had broken the law – she had not. But she had violated the spirit of the new legislation which is coming in.
The Renters’ Rights Bill currently going through Parliament (and likely to be passed early in the Autumn) will have a big impact but, again characteristic of the Starmer style, not necessarily producing the desired result.
As David Smith, Property Litigation Partner at Spector Constant & Williams points out, ” Under the proposed Renters’ Rights Bill, if a landlord evicts tenants in order to sell, they would be prohibited from re-letting the property for 12 months. [So] under the new rules, such homes would have to sit empty for a year, further restricting supply and depriving renters of much-needed housing. While the Renters’ Rights Bill is designed to protect tenants from unfair evictions, it will be important to ensure it doesn’t unintentionally reduce the availability of rental properties.”
Sadly the law of unintended consequences is the most reliable under the current regime. Expect the worst.
The LegalDiarist
In this edition
+ LEGAL DIARY OF THE WEEK
‘Non-Traditional’ Route into In-House Legal via Flex
Conveyancers At Risk
Meningitis Activists Get Support
Mock Employment Tribunal for the Autumn
+ CONTRIBUTED ARTICLE OF THE WEEK
Understanding the New AI Literacy Obligations under the EU AI Act by Jonathan Armstrong
+ LEGAL COMMENT OF THE WEEK
on reduced interest rates and impact on divorce, unsafe cosmetic procedures, restriction zones for abusers, the Charity Commission’s report on Sentebale, the FCA and the Woodford case, the ‘Opt-out collective actions regime’ review, possible tax raising measures and age-based minimum wage bands.
+ APPOINTMENTS OF THE WEEK
at Birketts and Quinn Emanuel
LEGAL DIARY OF THE WEEK
‘Non-Traditional’ Route into In-House Legal via Flex
For all the talk about bringing people into the legal profession who have ‘non-traditional’ backgrounds it seems as if, in real life, things are going backwards. Hence the share of lawyers in SRA-regulated law firms whose origins are in the lower socio-economic groups has actually reduced from 21% in 2015 to 18% in 2023. If things keep going that way then the numbers will have halved within a generation.
The reasons no doubt are complicated but, whatever the causes, more stepping stones are required to ease the path for those who don’t have the law (or indeed any traditional profession) in their family genes.
That is why Flex Trainee 2025 is to be welcomed. Set up four years ago by Flex Legal the scheme is focused on opening up opportunities for in-house legal trainees and company secretaries to more diverse talent.
“Our ambition is to be the biggest provider of lawyers from under-represented backgrounds in the UK,” comments Mary Bonsor, founder of Flex Legal. “We know there’s a wealth of talent out there, but also, still, far too many barriers. I started Flex Trainee because of the relentless focus on backgrounds in legal recruitment – so many talented individuals were slipping through the net because of their circumstances, not their potential.”
More than 100 trainees have been through the scheme in the last three years, working in organisations such as Vodafone, Tesco, Diageo, Amazon and the Crown Estate. Getting people started on the right foot is critical so Flex runs a three-week ‘readiness programme’ to ensure that trainees ‘hit the ground running’. They then continue to offer monthly support for both trainees and the client as well as funding the SQE exams and SQE prep course through Barbri. On-going each trainee is then part of a peer network, with others going through the same pathway, meaning there’s professional support from within the group.
“Flex Trainee have provided us with something which we could not have pulled off ourselves: brilliant and aspiring individuals from under-represented backgrounds who have made an impact in our legal team,” comments Jeremy Mavor, UK General Counsel at National Grid.
Conveyancers ‘At Risk’
The Council for Licensed Conveyancers (CLC) has published its annual Risk Agenda, here and it is pretty hard-hitting.
“Don’t slack with post-completion work just because you’ve been paid,” the CLC warns conveyancers. Indeed, the organisation is taking a severe swipe all round with its 2025 Risk Agenda emphasising the ‘fundamental importance of ethics and ethical conduct’ in the light of what it describes as ‘profession-wide concerns’. This comes in the wake of the CLC introducing its new Code of Conduct at the start of the year.
Some of the points made are simply shocking. For example, the fact that the CLC needs to remind its members that “On HMLR applications …taking the fee and not completing the work is a breach of its Accounts Code and demonstrates a lack of integrity” is almost jaw-dropping.
“The reality is that clients have been charged for this work and there is an obligation to perform it promptly and with diligence,” it adds.
If this reminder is necessary then something is going wrong somewhere.
“Problems can emerge from practices not having proper processes in place post-completion or even to provide undertakings in the first place,” it continues saying that among other concerning issues are a rise in the number of CLC practices both prepared to act where cryptocurrencies are part of a transaction – raising significant anti-money laundering (AML) issues – and acting where funding originated in China.
“ I am very proud to say that, against a backdrop of media reports which underscore the importance of maintaining high standards of ethical conduct in the legal profession, the CLC has once more not shied away from reforms which, in the interests of consumers, set more exacting requirements when it comes to the professional conduct of the conveyancers and probate lawyers we regulate,” said CLC chair Dame Janet Paraskeva.
It will be interesting to track how successful they are.
Meningitis Activists Get Legal Support
The ‘No plan B for MenB campaign’ has been given a boost by the support of Clarke Willmott whose national medical negligence team is partnering with charity Meningitis Now in its calls for the MenB vaccine to be given to those most at risk of the disease. The need to protect adolescents is a particular priority.
“It will be great to work with such a respected and worthy charity and support the work they are engaged with,” said Kerry Fifield, partner and team manager at Clarke Willmott. “Having seen, from previous cases, the devastating impact of meningitis and specifically the impact that MenB can have on young lives and their families, we will be supporting their No Plan B for MenB campaign.”
The charity says that MenB is one of the most common causes of meningitis in the UK. It can be life-changing and even fatal – but it is preventable. Clarke Willmott’s special interest stems from extensive experience of dealing with complex, high value meningitis and sepsis claims, specifically where children and young adults have suffered brain damage, amputation, hearing loss and, in some case, death. As well as securing compensation in cases which arise from medical negligence the firm helps clients access support and rehabilitation services to enhance their quality of life.
“We are delighted to welcome Clarke Wilmott to the Brighter Future Partnership group at Meningitis Now,” said Laura Williams from the campaigning group, “This is an exciting new partnership that will add further legal expertise and insight to our support offering. It is so exciting to be working together this year and we are looking forward to seeing what we can achieve together.”
Mock Employment Tribunal for the Autumn
It’s still Summer but Broadfield – which describes itself as a transformative international law firm with offices in London, Cambridge, Reading, and Southampton – is already promoting an immersive learning experience for its friends and clients via a Mock Employment Tribunal to be held in Reading Town Hall in mid-September.
Mind you the programme does look like an imaginative way of demonstrating to HR professionals how to handle the increasing complexities of dealing with the sharp end of employing (and firing) people. “This practical and interactive session is a great opportunity to experience an Employment Tribunal scenario, understand how the process works and build confidence to prepare for any future tribunals without risk to your business,” explains the firm.
Alongside the Broadfield solicitors will be barristers Jude Shepherd, Aysha Ahmad and Alex Lawson all of whom hail from from 42BR Barristers. So a nice bit of exposure for them as well.
But it’s not just an out-of-office jolly. Starting at 2.00 and continuing until 7.30 it looks like hard work. Plus there’s a lot of advance reading required through a pack of Mock Tribunal documents, including witness statements, which will be sent out a week in advance just to ensure participants have time to digest them. It’s all necessary though if the afternoon’s experience is genuinely going to provide a real chance to demystify tribunal proceedings and learn how to prepare for, present and defend a tribunal claim.
Also on the agenda will be a forum to question and discuss Employment Tribunal issues with the team and, maybe more importantly, an employment judge. Plus of course ‘Networking opportunities’ with fellow professionals – so maybe a bit of jollification at the end.
CONTRIBUTED ARTICLE OF THE WEEK
Understanding the New AI Literacy Obligations under the EU AI Act
By Jonathan Armstrong
Artificial Intelligence (AI) use is growing at a rapid pace for lawyers aiding legal research, document drafting, and case analysis. Yet, alongside benefits come risks, particularly AI hallucination, where AI generates false or fabricated information, including fake legal citations.
As of July 2025, over 230 court cases worldwide involved AI hallucination issues across a wide-range of jurisdictions including the US, Canada, Australia, South Africa the UK – and even Trinidad & Tobago. High-profile cases such as Frederick Ayinde v The London Borough of Haringeyi and Hamad Al-Haroun v Qatar National Bank ii show the dangers of fabricated authorities being submitted to courts.
For lawyers hallucinations aren’t just inconvenient. Many of these cases have triggered reports to regulatory bodies like the SRA and BSB, with judges increasingly frustrated by lawyers’ conduct. In July, the President of the King’s Bench Divisioniii issued a clear directive: heads of chambers and managing partners must educate lawyers about AI risks and ethical duties. The consequences of hallucinations could include contempt hearings and criminal investigations. Courts will scrutinise whether leaders have provided proper AI training. And if proper training is not in place those leaders might themselves face sanction.
Legal obligations and the EU AI Act
The EU AI Act, effective from 2 February 2025, requires organisations deploying AI to ensure their people attain “AI literacy” under Article 4. This provision creates new compliance risks and operational challenges, especially for UK firms working in the EU.
Article 4 mandates understanding AI’s capabilities and limits, recognising risks like hallucination, and maintaining human oversight. The European Commission stresses that relying solely on AI providers or manuals is insufficient; frequent, role-specific training is essential.
Legal professionals cannot rely on clients or automated systems alone for citation accuracy. In at least one of these cases the lawyer concerned said she was not aware that she was using AI and with the incorporation of AI into common search engines these risks increase. AI must just be a tool, with lawyers verifying outputs before court submission. Failure risks severe sanctions including fines, disbarment, and contempt proceedings – and in extreme cases prison time.
Recent judgments show AI’s promise but provide clear warnings that misuse threatens professional integrity and court administration.
Recommendations for legal teams
Here are five steps for legal firms to consider:
- Audit AI systems across the firm – include shadow AI (e.g. lawyers using AI on their own devices).
- Develop targeted AI literacy training by role – simply banning AI just won’t work.
- Review vendor contracts to ensure compliance.
- Create clear internal AI use policies with human oversight.
- Engage leadership to foster a responsible AI culture.
AI literacy is no longer optional; it is essential to safeguarding the legal profession’s integrity. Acting now will help firms manage risk and demonstrate compliance amid growing AI scrutiny.
Jonathan Armstrong is a Partner at Punter Southall Law
LEGAL COMMENT OF THE WEEK
TOPIC: This week’s decision by the Bank of England to reduce the interest rate and its likely impact on divorcing couples
COMMENT BY: Judit Kerese, Associate at Stowe Family Law
“As the BoE drops its base rate, mortgage rates will likely fall in line, and borrowing capacity will improve. Remortgaging will also be easier, relieving some of the pressure on couples who may need the extra cash at a time where money is tight. As family lawyers, we are expecting a rush of divorce enquiries and finalised settlements as more separating couples will be able to afford to split their household.
I have several clients who have been awaiting the change in the base rate with anticipation and hope. These people have been putting off finalising their financial settlement until there is more security in their borrowing capacity, or in some instances, people simply would not have been able to afford a mortgage to secure a suitable home, which they can now do. This uncertainty has dragged out their proceedings, causing emotional strain. Some remain in the family home with their ex, obviously a less-than-ideal situation for couples who are ready to go their separate ways, often subjecting children to conflict.
In many cases, borrowing capacity determines how a matrimonial pot is divided, to ensure that housing needs of the parties and their children are met. The base rate reducing will therefore have a direct impact on a number of cases currently in negotiations.
The new base rate will hopefully cause a sigh of relief for many couples ready to commence divorce proceedings, or those looking to borrow for a new, sole mortgage.”
TOPIC: The government’s announcement that it intends to crack down on unsafe cosmetic procedures to protect the public
COMMENT BY: Christian Carr, Healthcare Regulation partner, Spencer West LLP
“We can expect these reforms, which fill gaps in the regulation of procedures that can involve high risk of adverse outcomes, to be generally welcomed by the public.
These changes follow many reported cases in the media over several years highlighting the often devastating consequences of these cosmetic interventions.
One theme in such reports is the surprise and confusion on the part of members of the public about the lack of regulatory monitoring and control of the people and places offering these services. Unsafe assumptions have often been made about the training and qualifications of those offering the services. Regulated professionals and provider organisations can also be expected to regard them favourably, as filling these gaps will ultimately serve to protect and enhance their reputations for delivering skilful, ethical, safe care.
Sensible and robust enforcement will be key to ensuring effectiveness of the reforms.”
COMMENT BY: Iona Silverman, IP & Media lawyer, Freeths
“The proposed new restrictions on who can access and provide cosmetic treatments are welcome, and the Government should in tandem consider the advertising of those treatments. Botox is a prescription-only medicine and so may not be advertised to the public. However, it may be advertised to healthcare professionals, and additionally cosmetic clinics and beauty salons may promote the services they provide. They are required to do that in a non-specific way for example they may reference “a consultation for the treatment of lines and wrinkles.” This means that the lines around advertising cosmetic treatments are blurred. The Advertising Standards Authority (ASA) previously banned a post by influencer Carl Woods’ that promoted “anti-wrinkle injections” on the basis that the post indirectly referred to Botox injections and so constituted the advertising of a prescription only medicine. However, this case appears to be an outlier as many seemingly reputable clinics continue to promote Botox both on and offline.”
TOPIC: The proposed introduction of restriction zones for abuse perpetrators,
COMMENT BY: Jennifer Richardson, Partner, Blackfords LLP
“This is a positive step towards tackling the prison over-crowding issue that is plaguing the criminal justice system at the moment.
Offering alternative punishments to offenders such as restricting their movements is something that would no doubt be a welcome move for a lot of convicted defendants.
We already have electronically monitored curfews, and the ability to monitor defendant’s movements by GPS. This is essentially an extension of that system and something which could be a very sensible alternative to custodial sentences.”
TOPIC: The Charity Commission’s report on Sentebale, the charity co-founded by Prince Harry
COMMENT BY: Liz Brownsell, Partner and Head of Charities, Birketts LLP
“The Sentebale case is a stark reminder to all charity trustees to keep the charity’s best interests at the centre of their decision-making and actions.
The Commission has criticised the trustees of Sentebale for allowing an internal dispute to escalate and play out publicly and has identified governance failings, including a lack of clarity regarding roles and delegated authority and a failure to put in place internal policies for investigating internal complaints. Most people involved in any role within a charity feel deeply passionately about the charity’s cause. That collective passion is often the driving force behind a charity’s success, but when passionate people disagree, the depth of feeling involved can lead to positions becoming entrenched and trustees losing sight of what is best for their charity.
The most effective charity boards navigate differences of opinion in a positive and constructive manner and recognise that a divergence of views is not necessarily a bad thing – when harnessed well, it results in balanced and well-considered decisions. If an internal disagreement becomes difficult, it is critical for trustees to keep the best interests of the charity at the centre of all decision-making. The starting point should always be mediation or facilitated discussions to reach a resolution that is focused on what is best for the charity. It is never helpful for internal disputes to be made public, and when trustees use the media to argue their side of a disagreement, it is difficult to see how they could possibly be thinking about what is best for the charity in doing so.
All charities should have robust and clear internal policies to deal with complaints and whistleblowing and clear procedures for how to address board-level disputes. When disagreements arise, trustees need to come together to reach a resolution, remaining focused on what is best for the charity, and leaving their egos at the door.”
COMMENT BY: Sara Drake, Chief Executive, Chartered Governance Institute UK & Ireland
“This case highlights the critical importance of strong governance in maintaining public trust, especially in high-profile charities. Clear roles, respectful dialogue, and well-functioning mechanisms for resolving disputes are essential to ensuring that a charity’s mission remains front and centre. When internal issues spill into the public domain, the greatest risk is to the beneficiaries who rely on the organisation’s work.
“The Charity Commission’s report serves as a timely reminder that good governance is not just about compliance—it’s about leadership, culture, and clarity of purpose. Trustees and leaders must remain accountable and focused on impact, even when disagreements arise.”
CGIUKI supports thousands of governance professionals across the UK and Ireland with practical guidance, training and leadership development. The Institute encourages boards and charity leaders to engage proactively with governance best practice, particularly when operating under public scrutiny.”
TOPIC: The FCA’s provisional decision to fine Neil Woodford and his firm £46million and ban Mr Woodford from holding senior manager roles and managing funds for retail investors
Comment BY: Caroline Black, consultant, Gherson Solicitors
“The ban of Neil Woodford and fines levied against him and the Woodford Equity Income Fund are a stark wake up call for those in senior positions. The decision notice makes plain that although Mr. Woodford was the designated risk owner for liquidity risks, he had sought to rely on the compliance and risk functions to set liquidity thresholds and raise any concerns. The FCA has roundly rejected this approach and apportioned personal responsibility at the highest level.”
TOPIC: The Department for Business and Trade’s ‘Opt-out collective actions regime’ review
COMMENT BY: Jeremy Marshall, Chief Investment Officer, Winward Litigation Finance
“This call for evidence is the product of the difficult experiences faced through the growing pains of the regime that have predominantly been experienced because of the successful defendant strategies of testing out every aspect of the new process.”
“Class actions can take many years from filing to a judgment, therefore the fact that there has only been one judgment in 10 years is not a measure of the regime’s success, which is still nascent.
I think it important to focus attention on a mature regime – take Australia. A recent article highlighted that in more than 30 years of operation, class actions in Australia have delivered over $8 billion in compensation to group members, most of whom were consumers, employees, small businesses or retail shareholders. A recent poll conducted by the Australian trade association was pretty clear – 76% of those polled believed current rules favour corporations over individuals, 57% said existing laws do not go far enough to hold companies and governments to account, and 84% cited legal costs as the biggest barrier to justice. 62% percent supported class actions backed by litigation funders as an important accountability tool, and 70% opposed any move to limit people or small businesses from participating in class actions against large corporations.”
“The opt out claim regime in the CAT would not function without the litigation funding industry. While this review opens the door for critics of funding, the government should know that funding is fundamental for access to justice in the UK.”
“Class actions and litigation funding level a playing field which is naturally leaning towards very big businesses those with influence, power and money. It is no surprise that the defendants are seeking to do the industry down because they are aware that they cannot continue to have it their own way. It is to be hoped that the industry collectively responds to this latest challenge and demonstrates again that funding is in the interests of the Davids, and not the Goliaths.”
TOPIC: The possibility that the Government might remove the dividend allowance to raise around £325 million a year in revenue, as well as axing inheritance tax relief for AIM shares and increasing dividend tax rates
COMMENT BY: Basil Dixon, Private Client Partner, Payne Hicks Beach
“Increasing taxes on shares would be damaging and is not going to fix the problems the UK economy faces.
“Equally damaging is the sense of fiscal uncertainty that currently surrounds the Government. Each week brings seems to bring some new speculation about another tax increase. Last week it was a wealth tax. This week it is investment taxes and IHT (again).
“What is needed is fiscal stability, not a constant drip-feeding of potential tax rises to test public opinion.”
TOPIC: The Government’s plan to eliminate age-based minimum wage bands in a bid to establish a single pay rate for all adults
COMMENT BY: Claire Cole, Senior Solicitor in Employment team, Harper James
“The government’s plan to scrap age bands for the minimum and living wage from 2026 is a big shift for employers. Businesses with a younger workforce, particularly in sectors such as retail, hospitality, and care, will need to start thinking now about how to adjust their pay structures, manage rising costs, and plan for the long term.
“The estimated rise in the National Living Wage to £12.71 an hour adds another layer of pressure. While many employers already pay above the minimum, this increase, alongside the move to a single adult rate, will have a real impact on payroll. It’s not just about headline wages either; businesses will also need to think about how this affects internal pay gaps and team morale.
“It’s helpful that the Government has asked the Low Pay Commission to balance the need for fair pay with affordability. Employers are already dealing with rising costs, skills shortages and a tough economic climate – so any wage changes need to be workable in practice, not just on paper. There could also be knock-on effects for recruitment and training. If entry-level roles become more expensive, some businesses might need to rethink how they structure apprenticeships, internships or early-career roles.
“That’s why employer input into the Low Pay Commission’s consultation is so important. Sharing real-life examples of how these changes might play out will help shape a more balanced, sustainable approach to wage policy – one that supports fair pay while also allowing businesses to thrive.”
LEGAL SECTOR APPOINTMENTS OF THE WEEK
BIRKETTS LLP
Nicola Gooch is joining Birketts as a Partner in its planning and environmental team. Previously with the Irwin Mitchell Planning Team she has a particular expertise in mixed use regeneration projects and enabling developments. She has acted for a wide variety of private sector clients, including house-builders, land promoters and development companies; retail developers, investment funds; care home providers and crematoria. She also regularly advises clients on the Community Infrastructure Levy.
Reputaionally she has been acknowledged in both Chambers and The Legal 500 for her outstanding contributions and is currently ranked joint fourth in this year’s Planning Law Survey. She also writes regularly for The Planner, the official magazine of the RTPI, alongside blogging and other contributions to contributor to the trade press.
“We are absolutely delighted to welcome Nicola to our team,” said
Tom Newcombe, Partner and Head of Planning and Environmental at Birketts “She is very well known in the industry as being a fantastic lawyer, very knowledgeable on a wide range of technical planning law matters, and has a wealth of experience in acting in the south-east on some of the most high-profile schemes”
QUINN EMANUEL
Robert Hickmott is re-joining Quinn Emanuel as a Partner and the firm’s General Counsel in its London office . He will combine this with client work .Formerly with CMS, he originally joined Quinn Emanuel in 2010. However, two years ago he switched to a role as consultant before being brought back as a Partner.
“After a couple of years away, I am feeling re-energised and excited to be re-joining Quinn Emanuel as a Partner,“ he said.
Hickman has been active in financial, banking, insolvency and fraud based litigation for over 25 years representing the full range of stakeholders in defending and pursuing claims and resisting/enforcing judgments. Amongst his most high profile cases has been representing the Liquidators of Stanford International Bank in UK litigation relating to the priority of insolvency officeholders and entitlement to control of the insolvent estate. This included dealing with proceedings commenced by the SFO and SEC relating to the characterisation of the bank’s assets in the UK as ‘proceeds of crime’ plus dealing with the restraint and freezing orders which this entailed. He was also involved in acting for HM Government when it needed to make an emergency application to Court in order to put the owner/operator of the UK rail infrastructure, Railtrack, into Special Railway Administration. He also advised HM Government on issues arising in the Administration.
We hope that you’ve been interested or informed 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