Edward Fennell’s LEGAL DIARY

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

7 November 2025

Editorial contact: fennell.edward@yahoo.com

SHORT THOUGHT FOR THE WEEK: All Present and Incorrect?

The ‘Power of Presence’ motto is likely to gain traction in the weeks ahead as part of on-going debate about WFH and persuading recalcitrant lawyers back into the office.

Both philosophically and psychologically it is an interesting question given the anxiety being stirred up by the possible tax threat to LLP members’ profit shares. It went so far as to make Charlotte Sallabank, Tax partner at Katten Muchin Rosenman LLP issue a solemn warning to Chancellor Rachel Reeves a few days ago. If she does start, says Sallabank, to target the super rich – such as top partners in top law firms – then “There is likely to be an acceleration in high earners moving to more welcoming tax regimes, such as Dubai and Milan.”

So how exactly does that play into the ‘Presence’ argument? If your ‘presence’ is no longer in, say, London or Manchester but in an office overlooking the duomo in Milano does that mitigate your absence from where, maybe, most of your clients are? In the virtual world we can be anywhere we pretend to be. But the ‘present’ of being somewhere in the flesh is that face-to-face encounters still count. Just how much they count, however, is hard to quantify.

The LegalDiarist

In this edition

+ LEGAL DIARY OF THE WEEK

So What’s the ‘Right Size’ for a law firm?

Pro Bono Week As Good As Ever

It Will Cost You

+ CONTRIBUTED ARTICLES OF THE WEEK

All Hail for Heather Hallett at Leading Awards for Women

The nine lives of the CAT by Mohsin Patel

Reforming the Palermo Protocol – what could this look like? by Rhian Lewis

Further entrenching inequality:Patients cannot afford to have the medical evidence letters, but they cannot afford not to have them by Emma Bates and Dr Liz Curran

+ LEGAL COMMENT OF THE WEEK

on mistaken prison releases, Stability vs. Getty Images, modern slavery, rogue businesses and immigration scams, the natural world and growth

+ APPOINTMENTS OF THE WEEK

at Pillsbury and Quillon Law

LEGAL DIARY OF THE WEEK

All Hail for Heather Hallett at Leading Awards for Women

The  Inspirational Women in Law Awards (run by The Next 100 Years) marked its first decade this week with its top Lifetime Achievement Award going to the renowned and formidable Baroness Heather Hallett DBE PC. Proof of her outstanding talents was that she was given the nigh impossible job of chairing the UK COVID‑19 Inquiry probing into the competence of the government’s handling of the pandemic. That followed dealing with the challenging inquest into the 7/7 London bombings. So, you might say, the supreme safe pair of hands in the most highly sensitive situations.

Also attracting notice among a flurry of other awards was Emma Davies of  Everys Solicitors who gained the award for ILEX Lawyer / Chartered Legal Executive of the Year. Davies was a founder member of her local CILEX branch before becoming a CILEX Council member and, in 2023/24, serving as CILEX President.

Fiona Donnelly won the award for Legal Academic of the Year with her notable track record including being a founder member and director of the Law Society of Northern Ireland’s Advanced Advocacy Course, chair of the of the Law Society’s Children Order Accreditation Panel Board and having created the first Vulnerable Person Practitioner Certificate. 

Other award winners this year include Irwin Mitchell’s Geeta Nayar for Solicitor of the Year who sustained life-changing obstetric injuries during the birth of her first child. She has since given evidence at a national inquiry into birth trauma and become a leading maternal health campaigner. Meanwhile Hanisha Patel of 7 Bedford Row is the Barrister of the Year with a specialism in family law proceedings involving vulnerable women from minority backgrounds, including cases relating to forced marriage, FGM, and honour-based violence.

“Much has changed in the last ten years, with women now the majority in the profession,” said Dana Denis-Smith, CEO of Obelisk Support and founder of the Next 100 Years.

So What’s the ‘Right Size’ for a law firm?

The past thirty years it had seemed was a story in the legal sector of endless mergers and consolidations. In the UK many of the top firms in the top fifty of 1990 have dissolved and disappeared in the drive for growth and international expansion. Yet according to a new report from the International Bar Association ‘Navigating Global Growth A Playbook for Independent Law Firms’, launched this week at the IBA’s conference in Toronto, independent firms are now starting to thrive again. They are building stronger cross-border relationships and they are starting to demonstrate that independence is now an advantage, not a limitation.

According to the report

• 91% of independent firms report that many international clients become repeat clients, based on a European survey sample.
• For 83% of independent firms surveyed, up to a quarter of their instructions can be traced to contacts and networks built through the International Bar Association.
• 62% of independent firms have clients who previously used international firms in their jurisdiction.
• Independence emerges as an advantage, not a limitation.
• A third of independent law firms have direct experience of international law firms leaving gaps in the market because of conflicts. It may well be the final point which is the most significant. A smaller pool of mega firms is bound to create a problem of conflicts. So the irony might well be that the over ambitious firms at the top of league tables ‘by size’ firms are actually self-harming via bulking up. to excess. In the long term moderation is what matters.

Download here the report Navigating Global Growth

Pro Bono Week As Good As Ever

It has been another great Pro Bono week across the UK for the law business with an increase of over 1,000 lawyers recognised on the 2025 Pro Bono Recognition List for volunteering 25+ hour.Meanwhile the Bar Council of England & Wales shows barristers provided more than 45,700 days of pro bono in 2024.

Events have been taking place across the country from north to south with Belfast, Birmingham, Cambridge, Cardiff, Dundee, Edinburgh, Glasgow, Leeds, Liverpool, London, Manchester, Newcastle, Plymouth, Sheffield, Southampton all participating as well as activity online. The theme for the week has been ‘Pro Bono In Action’.

“The profession in all four nations of the UK has a long commitment to volunteering their time to support those in need of legal help,” said Toby Brown, Chair of the UK organising committee of Pro Bono Week. “This year’s theme of “Pro Bono in Action” highlights the real difference pro bono makes to individuals and to charitable causes. The Week is an opportunity for us to thank all the lawyers and charities involved in pro bono, whilst bringing us together to discuss how pro bono can be delivered most effectively.”

 Barbara Mills KC, the Chair of the Bar of England and Wales, said, “ Providing pro bono assistance can offer barristers access to challenging work which can assist with their skills and career development.We have seen a record demand for the services of our pro bono partners, Advocate and the Free Representation Unit. I, once again, want to thank them for the work they do but the system must not rely on that goodwill. The Bar Council has long warned of the widening justice gap and repeatedly made the case that pro bono cannot be a substitute for a properly funded legal system. Investing in justice means savings in the long run as well as contributing to economic growth.”

It Will Cost You

With partners in top international law firms earning well over two million pounds but rank-and-file criminal barristers struggling to get by the legal sector is a difficult one to generalise about financially. But one dot of data we do now have – albeit from what might be regarded as the fringe of the legal empire – is that being a Costs Lawyer is worth an extra £10,000 in salary compared to costs draftspersons or other unqualified costs professionals.

This information comes from the ever-reliable Association of Costs Lawyers (ACL) – and if you can’t trust them then who can you trust? – and forms part of the Association’s ongoing ‘Cost of Costs Lawyers’ project. This aims to highlight the value of qualification to professionals and employers a point which is highly topical right now given the High Court ruling in Mazur, which highlighted the importance of having independent practice rights – as Costs Lawyers do.

ACL Council member Amy Dunkley, who has been leading on the project, said: “Aside from the intrinsic value in having a professional qualification, which has recently been brought further into the spotlight by the Mazur judgment, these figures confirm the value that employers place on it too, with higher paid and ostensibly more senior roles being filled by Costs Lawyers.

“Unlike other unqualified costs professionals, a qualified Costs Lawyer is regulated under the Legal Services Act 2007 and must comply with the professional standards and rules set by their regulator, the CLSB.

“We obviously believe that Costs Lawyers deserve recognition through the salaries they are paid, but we also plan to use this information and other outputs from the Cost of Costs Lawyers project to campaign for formal acknowledgment that Costs Lawyers can be grade A fee-earners for the purposes of the guideline hourly rates.”

CONTRIBUTED ARTICLES OF THE WEEK

The nine lives of the CAT by Mohsin Patel

In the dying days of October, Apple lost a class action antitrust lawsuit at the Competition Appeal Tribunal (CAT) after it was held to have abused its dominant position to charge ‘excessive and unfair prices in the form of the commission’. At a stroke, the tech giant, which has already announced its intention to appeal, found itself facing a £1.5bn damages bill.

But what makes the case notable is not simply its size, voluminous though the thirty-six million claimants are, but the fact that it provides a rare example of a stand-alone opt-out claim succeeding at trial before the CAT. What’s more, it comes as the Department for Business and Trade reviews the opt-out collective action regime.

On paper, the grounds for launching the review seem reasonable enough. The regime has just turned ten and, according to the call for evidence, has morphed beyond what was originally envisioned for it. Tens of billions in damages have been claimed. Most cases were expected to be follow-on, proceeding in the wake of a Competition and Markets Authority or European Commission investigation, yet ninety percent have turned out to be standalone.

Such concerns are misplaced, however. With only one opt-out case to have succeeded at trial to date – albeit with more claims waiting in the wings – the regime remains in its infancy. Any substantive changes to the system would therefore be premature.

The sharp growth in the volume of claims, meanwhile, is ultimately a sign that the system is working as intended and that corporate wrongdoers are being held to account. Many of these cases, including the claim against Motorola relating to unfair pricing for its provision of emergency communications, funded by the Home Secretary, and certified this month on behalf of numerous public sector and charitable organisations , simply would not have been able to proceed without the opt-out regime. What’s more, the current system benefits from significant judicial scrutiny of claims by CAT judges at the certification stage. Of course, this follows equally careful scrutiny by funders and ATE insurers who have a vested interest in avoiding unmeritorious claims.

The ability for individuals and SMEs to bring large corporate wrongdoers to account is an important right and any attempt at its restriction should be viewed sceptically. Remove the opt-out regime and you’ll be removing a vital route to justice by making it impossible for a large number of consumers to force corporate behemoths to account for what might prove to be small individual losses.

Even as Apple breathes fresh life into CAT claims, it is, perhaps, time to explore ways to expand the opt-out regime to non-competition cases.

Mohsin Patel is Co-Founder, Factor Risk Management

Reforming the Palermo Protocol – what could this look like?

by Rhian Lewis

The Palermo Protocol turns 25 on 15^th November. Its adoption was a watershed moment for human trafficking victims. For the first time, an international, legally binding treaty defined human trafficking. It also obliges States to give victims the possibility of obtaining compensation.

As a Pro Bono solicitor who assists human trafficking survivors, I know compensation is a symbolic but important gesture. My clients have often been raped, psychologically and physically abused by traffickers. No monetary amount can remedy this. However, compensation is vital to helping them rebuild their lives, feeling believed and heard. Clients have secured education places and safe accommodation using compensation. Furthermore, it can be paid from the trafficker’s assets to victims, deterring further trafficking by levying financial sanctions on perpetrators.

Twenty five years on, compensation is still rare. As a domestic example, the UK’s Criminal Injuries Compensation Scheme does not automatically consider human trafficking a crime of violence.

Furthermore, regional, international and normative reparations practice has evolved beyond the Protocol, becoming broader and holistic. Reparations inhabit other forms in addition to compensation, like public apologies or building memorials. They can be transformative guarantees of non-repetition: looking at the root of the human rights abuse and how to prevent recurrence. This could involve changing domestic law, giving specialised law enforcement training or granting educational grants to human rights abuse victims to mitigate structural discrimination.

Over ten years ago, the Human Rights Council issued Resolution 20/1 to produce a new set of effective remedies for trafficking victims. These were the Basic Principles on the Right to an Effective Remedy for Victims of Trafficking, led by former Special Rapporteur on Trafficking in persons, Joy Ngozi Ezeilo. They mandate reparation in a broad sense, spanning compensation, rehabilitation and guarantees of non-repetition. They refer to discrimination as a “root cause of trafficking” which must be dismantled. This shows how reparations can end abuse cycles.

But then it went quiet. Beyond UN General Assembly acknowledgement, it does not appear the Principles were endorsed. Isit time to look at reparations again? Could we cross-pollinate by annexing the Principles to the Palermo Protocol? After all, they have been presented to the Human Rights Council and UN General Assembly, and reflect established rules of international law. This update would allow the Protocol to keep its pre-eminence and relevance for trafficking survivors, whilst employing reparations to prevent this heinous human rights abuse from recurring.

Rhian Lewis is Head of Pro Bono and Counsel at Farrer & Co, specialising in international human rights law.

Further entrenching inequality – Patients cannot afford to have the medical evidence letters, but they cannot afford not to have them

by Emma Bates and Dr. Liz Curran

The NHS was founded on the principle of care being free at the point of access. Yet, for many patients who are very poor and struggling to survive, this is no longer true. Hit hardest are those navigating essentials for survival such as benefits claims, housing issues, or domestic abuse. In a recent and widespread phenomenon, GPs are now charging fees for medical evidence letters that can be pivotal in establishing their case and are a legal requirement to access wider support with their problem. Patients cannot afford to have the medical evidence letters, but they cannot afford not to have them. This is widening health inequalities by limiting access to justice which exacerbates poor health – increasing costs to the NHS too.

The Central England Law Centre (CELC) health justice partnership, sees these struggles firsthand. For example, clients approaching homelessness services are being advised GP medical notes are too brief and to substantiate a claim they need a GP letter to confirm medical issues are severe enough to warrant priority need. These are often charged at £60. These are people living with mental health issues, disabilities, significant health conditions (e.g. asthma) and often have complex trauma.

Some are living on £400 a month and £60 represents a significant portion of their income – needed for rent, medications, transport to medical appointments, food and energy. Even with careful budgeting, £400 doesn’t go far and stark choices to go without essentials are their only option.

CELC clients are living in properties where damp and mould is affecting their health. Clients must pay for GP medical evidence letters to raise a full complaint with a landlord and for expert reports too – which authorities require to substantiate a patient’s claim. These can cost up to £175. Even if you are eligible for legal aid, the Legal Aid Agency will not pay more than a maximum fee of £50.40.

Charging the poorest people is creating a two–tiered justice system where people cannot afford evidence of their conditions and the support it enables, leading to their health deteriorating. GPs see patients in a worsened state thus costing more downstream for the health system.

There are solutions and there is a precedent. GPs used to charge victims for letters confirming their abuse but now the law has prohibited this. Therefore, people experiencing poverty who rely on GP letters for evidence to access vital services should be legally protected and exempt from this charge.

Emma Bates is Director of Positive Action on Poverty and Partnerships, Central England Law Centre (CELC) and Dr Liz Curran is Associate Professor, Nottingham Law School, Nottingham Trent University

LEGAL COMMENT OF THE WEEK

TOPIC: The possibility that cybersecurity specialists are going rogue with ransomware

COMMENT BY: Mark Tibbs, Cyber Risk and Complex Investigations, Mishcon de Reya

“The idea that individuals with experience in incident response and cybersecurity, who are typically trusted to protect organisations from cyber attacks, may have been involved in ransomware attacks is deeply unsettling.

“These individuals’ professional backgrounds meant they were extremely familiar with ransomware groups and some had likely spoken with and negotiated with attackers as part of their roles. This level of expertise, usually used to help victims and defend against threats, can unfortunately be misused if ethical boundaries are crossed.

“Although it’s not unheard of for those with technical expertise to misuse their skills, such gamekeeper turned poacher cases are thankfully rare. These incidents highlight that the risk of malicious actors is not limited to traditional insider threats; sometimes, those outside organisations with specialist knowledge may exploit their experience for criminal purposes.

“The techniques used to defend against cyber threats are inherently dual use—they can be applied for good or ill. The most effective cybersecurity professionals operate within strict ethical frameworks, undergo thorough vetting, and work with transparency and accountability. Technical skill is vital, but integrity is what truly keeps the industry and its clients secure. Industry schemes such as CREST, the UK Cybersecurity Council, and the NCSC Assured Provider scheme help set a baseline for professionalism and trustworthiness in this field.”

TOPIC: Mistaken prison releases

COMMENT BY: Dary Makoona, Prison Law solicitor, Reeds Solicitors LLP

“Not only wrongfully released, but also unlawfully detained are quite usual these days. This is mainly due to the complexity of release provisions which have been rolled out by Governments. For decades, prisons have been used at applying the 50% provision and would release a prisoner at halfway point which was very straightforward.

However, now some can be released at 40%, 50%, 66% and others are eligible to be released after ½ while some others at ⅔ of their sentences. This gets even more complicated for prisoners serving concurrent/consecutive sentences under different release provisions or have been recalled to prison and/or received a further sentence whilst on licence.

This can even more complicated for recalled prisoners of determinate sentence prisoners serving a less than 48 months sentence known as FTR48. There are so many eligibility criteria which can easily lead to releasing the wrong prisoner or unlawfully continuing the imprisonment another prisoner.

This will get even worse with when the new sentencing bill comes into force which would provide for earlier release under the Earned Progression scheme. This add further tasks and responsibilities to prison Governors who are already short of officers.”

TOPIC: Dodgy businesses and immigration scams

COMMENT BY: Emma Brooksbank, Immigration Partner, Freeths

“The BBC report [this week on BBC 1 NEWS ] on the criminal networks behind sham businesses is shocking. However, we frequently hear about companies facing significant civil penalties, only to dissolve and re-emerge with the same directors. This cycle undermines trust and fairness in the system. It allows repeat offenders to continue operating with impunity, while genuine businesses face higher costs and stricter checks.

The actions of rogue business owners undermine the integrity of the immigration system and places unnecessary burdens on compliant employers.

Legislative changes proposed by the current Government mark a significant shift in employer obligations. Designed to strengthen right-to-work checks, these will extend compliance requirements to a wider range of businesses, including those engaging contractors, gig economy workers, and sub-contractors. While these reforms aim to tackle illegal working, they also increase the burden on honest employers who already play by the rules.

Part of the approach to dealing with criminal networks who facilitate and encourage illegal immigration lies in greater collaboration between government agencies. Immigration enforcement cannot work in isolation. Insolvency processes, company registration, and director accountability must be aligned to prevent individuals from simply liquidating and starting again. Closing these loopholes is essential to protect the integrity of the system and ensure that compliance measures target the right people.

Stricter rules should not punish those who follow the law. By tackling rogue operators effectively, the Home Office can reduce the need for blanket measures and create a fairer environment for businesses committed to doing the right thing.”

TOPIC: The Government’s announcement this week about its new vision for nature and growth

COMMENT BY: Richard Broadbent, environmental lawyer, Freeths

“Natural England’s new strategy, “Recovering Nature for Growth, Health and Security,” sets the right strategic outcomes – recovering nature, building better places, improving health and wellbeing and delivering security through nature.

In my view these are the right strategic outcomes which Natural England should be focussing on.  Recovering nature at scale is essential, it’s how we halt biodiversity loss and build healthier, happier communities.

The strategy signals a continued shift towards a more strategic, enabling role, streamlining regulation and relying more on standing advice, with less hands-on input from frontline experts.

But as Natural England moves towards a more hands-off strategic role, this has the potential to lead to a less rigorous approach in the planning and development process. Less expert input risks weaker decisions on the ground.

In short, Natural England’s strategic outcomes are the right ones, but the delivery model must safeguard the depth and quality of Natural England’s advice. Without that, the move towards efficiency could inadvertently compromise the very objectives it seeks to achieve.”

COMMENT BY: Ben Sharples, Partner and Head of Natural Capital, Michelmores

“Natural England’s stated aim to focus more on outcomes than process is obviously welcome but we need a similar approach from DEFRA. The flagship of catchment scale schemes – Landscape Recovery – is still being held back because the implementation agreements are too restrictive. Private investment will not complement public money if the schemes are unbankable.”

TOPIC: The latest figures from the Government which reveal that the number of referrals of potential victims of modern slavery received this quarter is the highest ever received since the National Referral Mechanism began in 2009.

COMMENT BY: Lucy Blake, Partner, Jenner & Block

“The increase in referrals, coupled with intensified litigation activity, new regulations and government and media scrutiny relating to labour market misconduct in the UK and Europe heightens the risks for companies.  Those that rely on low-skilled labour and/or with high numbers of seasonal or temporary workers or complex and opaque supply chains are particularly exposed.

“Litigation relating to labour conditions is on the rise, with claims being brought by increasingly well-funded and litigious NGOs as well as large groups of individuals on contingent fee-arrangements.  These claims are not being dismissed for remoteness – the Courts in the UK (and Europe) are showing an increasing willingness to engage in ESG/ human rights issues and have accepted jurisdiction to hear claims against UK parent companies in respect of forced labour issues involving overseas subsidiaries.”

COMMENT BY: Alasdair Hobbs Employment Partner, Excello Law

“The record-breaking figures – with 6,414 potential victims referred in just three months, a 35% increase year-on-year – should serve as a wake-up call to all employers. Modern slavery isn’t just an overseas issue or confined to certain sectors. With the highest quarterly referrals since the NRM began in 2009, it is clear that exploitation is happening in UK workplaces and supply chains right now, and employers have both a legal and moral duty to be vigilant.

“Under the Modern Slavery Act 2015, larger businesses must publish annual statements on their efforts to ensure slavery-free supply chains, but obligations extend to all employers. Companies need robust due diligence processes, not just tick-box exercises. With referrals surging 13% in a single quarter, it’s evident that many employers may still be missing the warning signs in their own operations.”

TOPIC: The success in the High Court of Stability AI against Getty Images regarding the legality of AI models using troves of copyrighted data without permission.

COMMENT BY: Iain Connor, Intellectual Property Partner, Michelmores

“The most significant AI case to reach the English High Court has been decided and has turned out to be a massive damp squib.

“During the trial, Getty Images dropped its important ‘Training and Development Claim’ on jurisdictional grounds because it accepted that none of the Stability AI Model’s learning took placewithin the UK jurisdiction.

“Given the jurisdictional problem Getty Images faced (and ultimately acknowledged), the judge had no opportunity to rule in general terms on the lawfulness of AI’s use of copyright protected ‘input materials’ and whether an AI model’s ‘output’ infringed such copyrights.

“The decision leaves the UK without a meaningful verdict on the lawfulness of an AI model’s process of learning from copyright materials.”

COMMENT BY: Nathan Smith, IP partner, at Katten Muchin Rosenman LLP

“On the surface, the long-awaited ruling by the English High Court in the Getty Images Inc v Stability AI case may appear to have provided some clarity on the interplay between AI and IP infringement, but in reality there remains significant uncertainty. The Court’s findings on the more important questions regarding copyright infringement were constrained by jurisdictional limitations, offering little insight on whether training AI models on copyrighted works infringes intellectual property rights.

While Getty succeeded in part on limited trade mark infringement claims relating to the unauthorised outputs of ‘iStock’ and ‘Getty Images’ watermarks by earlier Stable Diffusion models, these findings were based on specific examples and offer minimal practical impact. The Court dismissed Getty’s secondary infringement claims, holding that an AI model was not an “infringing copy” under English copyright law as it does not “store or reproduce” copyrighted works. On the face of it, the judgment appears to present a win for the AI community, but arguably leaves the legal waters of copyright and AI training as murky as before.”

COMMENT BY: Gosia Evans, Senior Solicitor, intellectual property team, Harper James

“The decision stops short of answering the big question: should training AI models using works protected by copyright be lawful in the UK? We need the UK Government to urgently regulate AI use in a manner that is practical, forward-thinking and comprehensive, and that does not compromise or remove copyright protections that are important for creative industries in the UK to thrive.

“The creative market is hugely significant to the UK economy. Getty’s own statement on the judgment calls on governments worldwide to ‘establish stronger transparency rules which are essential to prevent costly legal battles and to allow creators to protect their rights,’ and as a professional intellectual property adviser, I could not agree with this appeal more.”

COMMENT BY: Nick Eziefula, Partner Simkins LLP

“[This] decision will frustrate many in the creative industries, who are calling for stronger, modernised copyright protections against the unauthorised use of their work by AI developers.

“Crucially, the judgment does not address some central copyright issues: whether using copyright material to train AI models amounts to infringement, and whether AI-generated outputs can themselves infringe. Getty dropped its claims on those key issues due to jurisdictional hurdles, as much of the AI training occurred in the US.

“Instead, Getty pursued a narrower argument – that bringing an AI model trained on unlicensed works into the UK was akin to importing infringing copies. The judge disagreed, ruling that existing laws, drafted in an era of physical piracy, cannot easily be stretched to cover AI systems that do not store copies of the original works.

“This case underscores a growing gap between old copyright law and new technology. The creative sector is now looking to lawmakers – and future court battles – to deliver clearer answers and fairer frameworks for ethical, transparent AI innovation.”

LEGAL SECTOR APPOINTMENTS OF THE WEEK

PILLSBURY

The Rt Hon. the Lord Garnier KC is to join Pillsbury in London. Well known as a member of the House of Lords, a former Solicitor General for England and Wales, a former Member of Parliament, and an experienced silk, he will serve as senior counsel with the firm.

With extensive experience advising companies and individuals on corporate crime, international human rights, sanctions, defamation, privacy and related media law cases Garner has an almost unique skill set to bring to Pillsbury. He was the driving force behind the UK’s adoption of the U.S.’s Deferred Prosecution Agreement (DPA), through which a company accused of corporate crime agrees to meet certain conditions to pause or defer criminal charges. He also led the legal teams in four of the twelve UK DPAs ever negotiated—two on behalf of the Serious Fraud Office (SFO) and two on behalf of respondents.

“As Solicitor General, Lord Garnier initiated and drove the work at the UK Serious Fraud Office towards its use of Deferred Prosecution Agreements,” said Firm Chair David Dekker. “He has unsurpassed experience navigating the intricacies of investigations, from both government and private practice perspectives. He will now bring that knowledge to bear on behalf of our clients.”

QUILLON LAW

Neil Dooley is joining the Disputes boutique Quillon Law  as a Partner. Formerly with Steptoe Dooley is a leading fraud and investigations specialist with particular expertise in complex, multi-jurisdictional litigation, especially involving Eastern Europe and the CIS region. His   practice spans commercial litigation, international arbitration, white-collar defence, WTO disputes, independent and internal investigations, and asset recovery.

Notable in Dooley’s extensive track record is having secured a US$600 million arbitration award for a bank defrauded in a major transaction involving companies controlled by the Mints family (LCIA, 2021) and having represented National Bank Trust, which required a US$1 billion bailout following a major fraud, and securing a US$900 million judgment with worldwide freezing orders against the bank’s former owners.

“Over the past few years, Quillon Law has established itself as one of London’s most dynamic litigation boutiques and carved out a strong presence in the sector,” said Dooley. “I am thrilled to be joining the partnership and look forward to contributing to the firm’s reputation for delivering results in complex and high-profile commercial disputes.”

Partner Mark Hastings commented, “Neil is an exceptional litigator with an outstanding record in complex fraud and international disputes. His arrival underlines our commitment to offering clients world-class expertise and strategic insight across the full spectrum of commercial and white-collar matters.”

We hope that you’ve been interested or amused by something in this week’s LEGAL DIARY. If so do send on to colleagues.

In any case please continue to send your legal DIARY stories , legal insights and comments and reports of new appointment to

fennell.edward@yahoo.com