Edward Fennell’s LEGAL DIARY
Diary news plus insights, commentary and appointments from the legal world
14 November 2025
Editorial contact: fennell.edward@yahoo.com
SHORT THOUGHT FOR THE WEEK: Broadcasting Failure
The muddled mess into which the now-notorious ‘Panorama’ programme has plunged the BBC over its bungled editing of President’s Trump’s speech will be with us for some time to come. It embodies a view of a broken Britain in which elementary standards of professional conduct are no longer observed. The pantomime which will now play out over issues of jurisdiction and compensation payments will engage the legally minded but appal everyone else. Its only saving grace is that it might rally some tired patriotism if the BBC does indeed ‘stand-up to Trumpism’.
In terms of media law, however, it will put a focus on a range of interesting points in this age of the Internet – notably does anyone in Florida watch Panorama on BBC1? And, if so, will it cause them reputational damage?
The Legal Diarist
In this edition
+ LEGAL DIARY OF THE WEEK
Barristers Feeling Well (but not quite well enough)
New Podcast Series Launched by Rosenblatt Law on ‘Successful Leadership’
Exposing Law Students to the Legal Profession in Leeds
SEB Progress by Leading Law Firms
+ CONTRIBUTED ARTICLES OF THE WEEK
Justice Delayed is Justice Denied: Low-Asset Financial Remedy Matters in the Family Court by Julie Cohen
Workplace Investigations – The Human Edge by Victoria Hall
+ LEGAL COMMENT OF THE WEEK
on US versus European legislation, Cyber Security and Resilience Bill, ‘Pathfinder’ pilots, Railways Bill, BBC and Trump, EHRC and McDonald’s, Renters’ Rights, use of facial recognition vans
+ APPOINTMENTS OF THE WEEK
McCARTHY DENNING and LAWFRONT
LEGAL DIARY OF THE WEEK
Barristers Feeling Well (but not quite well enough)
A new report into the well-being and job satisfaction of barristers has revealed some encouraging results. Undertaken by Dr Darren Van Laar (based at the Quality of Working Life Research Group at the University of Portsmouth) the research measured ratings of barristers against the Barrister Wellbeing (BWB) scale, which has been developed for use in the Australian and British context.
Against all four of the BWB’s categories – Psychological Wellbeing (PWB), Perfectionism (PER), Workload Management (WLM) and Supportive Work Environment (SWE) – results have improved sine the last survey two years ago. For example, 69% of respondents reported they have good job satisfaction, compared to 61% in 2023.
That said, there was still plenty of room for improvement. For example, whilst just over half (56%) of respondents reported they were managing their workloads well, more than a quarter (27.2%) indicated they were not managing well with a similar proportion indicating that they tended to feel down or in low spirits (29%).
“The report also shows us that younger and more junior barristers, female barristers and those from minority ethnic backgrounds, as well as practitioners working in criminal and family law, continue to have lower levels of wellbeing,” said Barbara Mills KC, Chair of the Bar Council.“In all practice areas, barristers face unrelenting pressures and high expectations. Many operate in an underfunded system, often under stress. Some may suffer vicarious trauma as they support clients who have experienced violence and distress. Others may have to handle multi-million-pound deals in high pressure situations with livelihoods at stake.”
Read the full Wellbeing at the Bar report 2025
New Podcast Series Launched by Rosenblatt Law on ‘Successful Leadership’
Soloman Howard and Ailyn Pérez, the internationally acclaimed opera singers, General Sir Gordon Messenger, former Vice Chief of the Defence Staff and Moira Benigson, Founder of The MBS Group, are some of the ‘exceptional leaders’ featured in the first round of conversations undertaken by Ian Rosenblatt OBE in ‘Winning’. a new podcast series launched by Rosenblatt Law.
The aim is to explore the principles and psychology of success learning from both the highs and lows of the featured guests’ experience with the first episode featuring a ‘revealing conversation’ with Steve Parish, the businessman and Chairman of Crystal Palace Football Club.
“Having known each other since Parish was 12, Ian Rosenblatt’s long-standing relationship with his guest gives the conversation a rare depth and authenticity,” says the publicity release.Most notably Parish reveals how feedback from fans transformed his vision from ‘building sustainable infrastructure’ to ‘actively pursuing silverware’, reflecting on the teams FA Cup triumph at Wembley earlier this year.
“I realised it’s all right for me to have this vision for the club… but that’s not why people come to football,” said parish. “They don’t come to watch us being okay. The best thing you can do in football is to win.”
On innovation, Parish, remarks, “Mercilessly plagiarise other people’s work. You can’t possibly have all the good ideas, so you have to look at what are other people doing.”
The ‘Winning’ podcast is sponsored by Rosenblatt Law and produced by Studio at SEC Newgate UK. The first episode, featuring Steve Parish, is available now on all major podcast platforms.
Exposing Law Students to the Legal Profession in Leeds
Social mobility and widening access to the legal profession was the key topic when Mark Evans, President of the Law Society of England and Wales visited the law school at Leeds Beckett University recently. Backed up by a panel of experienced lawyers Mark Evans was able to offer insights into the many pathways into law and proffer practical advice to help students understand the prospects ahead.
“It was wonderful to spend an afternoon with aspiring solicitors, junior lawyers and member of the Leeds legal community,” said Evans. However, he added, there are still significant challenges for prospective solicitors, particularly for those from disadvantaged backgrounds. “I want to ensure young people are aware of the routes they can take to qualify and are confident that their legal education and training prepare them well for their careers.”
“I have taken away so much from this,” commented, Neve Bartleson, a third-year Leeds Law student. “Previously, I had no idea on how to start the process for the SQE (Solicitors Qualifying Examination), but after this talk I feel a lot more secure in going for training contracts and going through the paralegal route to kick-off my career.
“This is all brand-new to me and it’s so important for me to see representation – it has been very inspiring. It’s great to have these talks alongside the course, as it reassures your choice and you can take inspiration from people you aspire to be like.”
Dr Rachel Dunn, Interim Head of Subject (Postgraduate) at Leeds Law School, summed it all up. “Events like this give our students invaluable exposure to the profession, helping them to connect their studies with real-world practice and to see that there are many routes into law.”
SEB Progress by Leading Law Firms
Picking up on the same theme as Mark Evans’ visit to Leeds Beckett University (above), a report has been published this week on the results of collaborative research to identify effective practices to enhance socio-economic background (SEB) inclusion within the legal sector.
A consortium of eight high profile law firms – including KPMG Law – was commissioned by the Bridge Group to examine the effectiveness of various inclusion strategies and initiatives from the early career stage through to progression to partner. Amongst the firms’ effective practices regarding SEB inclusion were
+ Investment in early outreach with primary and secondary schools and engagement with a wider range of universities broadens the early talent pipeline.
+ Contextual recruitment, and other tools, routinely used to assess candidates’ achievements and to enable firms to identify outperformers.
+ Supporting well-resourced and active social mobility networks helps integrate practice and policy.
+ Formal responsibility and accountability for implementing inclusion measures is devolved across the firm and embedded in leadership responsibilities.
“Law firms are successfully investing substantial effort into attracting and recruiting the best talent and providing early career support,” said Dr Penelope Griffin, Research Partnerships Director at the Bridge Group. “It takes time for talent to progress to more senior roles and we observed that firms are committed to supporting this journey. Leaders from these eight law firms are clearly demonstrating that they are open to learning, sharing good practice, and reflecting on the structural and cultural changes needed to advance inclusion within their organisations and the legal sector more broadly. We highly commend these firms for contributing their time and commitment to this important piece of research of benefit to the greater good.”
The firms taking part in the project were A&O Shearman, Ashurst, Clifford Chance, Freshfields, KPMG Law, Linklaters LLP, Norton Rose Fulbright LLP, and Slaughter and May.
The report can be downloaded here and is now available on the Bridge Group website www.thebridgegroup.org.uk.
CONTRIBUTED ARTICLES OF THE WEEK
Justice Delayed is Justice Denied: Low-Asset Financial Remedy Matters in the Family Court by Julie Cohen
Justice delayed is justice denied. This is not a new concept and has been used as a rallying cry for a wide range of issues in our long history. The Family Court in England and Wales must take heed. Divorcing couples and their children need certainty and finality, yet for several years now have faced severe delays and last‑minute hearing cancellations. Waiting times between financial remedy hearings now commonly stretch to six to eight months. It is not unusual for a financial remedy matter to stretch out for two years or more.
The President of the Family Division has announced that the London Financial Remedies Court must reduce the number of hearings it conducts between October 2025 and March 2026. Short hearings may be moved to a different day or court. Longer hearings will be double‑listed, akin to an airline double-booking the same seat to two different passengers: one judge cannot conduct two hearings simultaneously, so one will be rescheduled, often at very short notice. The litigants will then need to wait for another six to eight months for a new hearing and have to pay another set of counsel’s fees as well. It is a disaster.
These delays disproportionately harm the most vulnerable litigants – those without the means to use private dispute resolution. Wealthier families are able to pay for Arbitration or private FDR hearings, heard before a private Judge at their convenience and in comfort, with tea and biscuits being provided. Poorer families need to wait six to eight months between hearings and, after enduring the wait, may arrive at court to find their judge has two or three hearings listed on the same date and at the same time. This is no criticism of the Judiciary, who work tirelessly for all litigants; rather, the system requires significantly more funding to function properly.
For low or limited‑asset financial remedy cases, the court’s overburden is only one of the inherent challenges. Where assets are insufficient, parties struggle to reach a mutually acceptable settlement purely because their need is more acute. Disputes become intractable, desperate and fraught, each side fighting for a tolerable outcome and accusing the other of disregarding their needs and those of their children – often whilst continuing to live under the same roof.
From a solicitor’s perspective, limited‑asset disputes can be much harder than high‑net‑worth matters to resolve. Costs and proportionality dominate every decision. Yet how can one matrimonial home become two without hardship? Resolving such cases out of court in a way both parties can accept is exceptionally difficult.
Absent creative legal thinking, these disputes often proceed to a final hearing. More cases increase the court’s burden; the burden breeds delay; delay denies justice. The cycle continues.
Julie Cohenis a Principal Associate Solicitor, Family Law Team, SA Law
Workplace Investigations – The Human Edge by Victoria Hall
From the Met Police to the London Fire Brigade, and most recently the Panorama revelations into police misconduct, one thing keeps re-emerging which is how investigations themselves can fail.
Although these cases make the headlines, similar failures occur across organisations of every size, often creating serious legal, reputational and cultural risk. Too often workplace investigations are conducted by people with little or no training in how to run them thoroughly and fairly. Shortcuts are sought; time pressures win. Yet, as with so much in law and business, the planning stage, the bit everyone wants to skip, is what determines success.
The consequences of getting it wrong are stark: unfair dismissal claims, tribunal awards, damaged employer brands and workforces that lose faith in their leadership. When investigations are mishandled, the original misconduct can become secondary to the procedural failure itself. Tribunals don’t just scrutinise what happened, they examine how it was handled. A flawed investigation can turn a defensible case into an expensive liability and transform a workplace issue into a public relations disaster that takes years to repair.
Ensuring specific allegations and benchmarks are defined correctly, identifying what evidence is relevant and reasonable to collect, handling confidentiality and anonymity, weighing evidence and deciding how (and whether) technology can assist all demand forethought. Increasing privacy requests and data security concerns are adding more complexity.
Workplace investigations are hard. They take time, energy, commitment and self awareness.
A good investigator must combine procedural precision with empathy, curiosity and emotional intelligence. But here’s what’s often missed: recognising personal bias, creating psychological safety for difficult conversations and managing the emotional weight of serious allegations. These are skills that require dedicated training. Understanding the legal framework matters but so does understanding people. The best investigators actively develop these human capabilities. It’s not innate talent; it’s learned expertise.
How are workplace investigators generally chosen? It is usually who is not directly involved and available. Rarely do I see a skills assessment undertaken to ensure that person is going to be suitable for the Investigator role.
Having started my career in the military, where development of human skills was central to every role, I’ve long advocated for their importance in law and business. There’s still work to do, but the message is clear: effective investigations need both rational process and genuine human insight. One without the other is not the skill set required.
Victoria Hall is an Employment Law Partner, Senior HR Professional and Accredited Workplace Investigator, Impact Legal and Business Services
LEGAL COMMENT OF THE WEEK
TOPIC: The question over whether leading US corporations should comply with the EU’s new sustainability reporting and due diligence regulations given that such actions might be at odds with their obligations in America
COMMENT BY: Lucy Blake, Partner at Jenner & Block
“Global companies are trapped between a rock and a hard place where their obligations in the EU and UK are in conflict with expectations and risks in the US. This issue will come into even sharper focus later this year as the EU Parliament continues to negotiate CSRD and CSDDD amendments, particularly those touching on which companies will fall within the laws’ scope.
“Meeting US obligations on DEI and ESG in particular may mean they fall foul of obligations in the EU and UK to promote diversity and mitigate environmental, social and governance-related impacts. This tension is particularly acute for government contractors, whose failure to comply with one set of obligations or the other risks hamstringing their ability to win contracts on either side of the pond.
“There is no one size fits all solution to this predicament. Global companies will need to navigate a path between the different requirements on ESG, DEI and other areas of law where there is international divergence, balancing their individual legal, commercial, reputational and political risks.
“Following the recent Executive Orders, the Administration is actively searching for “egregious offenders” to be held civilly and criminally liable for unlawful DEI-related employment practices. Exposure can be unpredictable and a trigger for more fulsome investigations and a hook for agencies to investigate other issues including supply chains that do not incorporate any US companies; and sourcing of materials or investment from the US’s adversaries or competitors. State Attorneys General – particularly those in the states signing AG Uthmeier’s letter – are eager to support initiatives they view as in-line with the Administration’s priorities on these issues.”
TOPIC: The Cyber Security and Resilience Bill now coming under Parliamentary scrutiny
COMMENT BY: Kristina Holt, Managing Associate, Foot Anstey
“The introduction of this Bill is by no means a guarantee of security or certainty, particularly as far as enforcement and due diligence is concerned. To be effective, we need to see significant resource actually allocated for its enforcement – if this is substandard, the full potential of the Bill may be limited.
“Amid escalating cyber threats in the UK, the government has generally taken a reactive approach, despite proactivity being what we so sorely need. It is encouraging to see the Bill reflect this necessity, but the challenge now is for businesses, who must feel their way through the fog of new compliance demands and bear the weight of the greater responsibility and obligation placed on their shoulders.
“At every stage moving forwards, industry must be consulted – real improvement will only come from conversation with those tackling cyber threats on the ground. It should be no surprise that technological legislation throws up technicalities, so the government should do all it can to ensure these are navigable. Industry input is, after all, invaluable for shaping practical, enforceable regulations with both the public and businesses’ best interests at heart.”
TOPIC: The impact of the ‘Pathfinder’ pilots in trying to reduce timescales in the family courts
COMMENT BY: Rachel Frost-Smith, Legal Director in the family team, Birketts LLP
“Certainly, any system that achieves the aim [of reducing delays] must be applauded. However, it will not be possible without a system of accurate information gathering to allow evaluation and forward planning, and investment in the service. In our experience, the crisis in London in terms of delays continues, deeply impacting children and victims of domestic abuse, that there is a lack of consistency in applying domestic abuse law, procedure and protocols across the country, and a lack of resources for victims.
The arguments in favour of establishing specialist domestic abuse courts where the tribunal and professionals understand the nature of domestic abuse, including how perpetrators seek to use litigation as a form of abuse remain strong – alongside Pathfinder.”
“The key findings of the evaluation were that Pathfinder brought about substantial improvements. It places the voice of the child at the centre, and this is sought much earlier in the process under Pathfinder. There was some cautious optimism about the success of Pathfinder.
The role of the Case Progression Officer in Pathfinder courts is seen as key to delivery of the model.
The challenges remain resources – particularly when managing ‘legacy’ cases (i.e. those cases started under the Child Arrangements Programme) alongside Pathfinder cases, and that domestic abuse agencies could not necessarily cope with the number of referrals to them.”
TOPIC: The introduction of the Railways Bill into Parliament
COMMENT BY: Lydia Cullimore, partner and head of Rail, Burges Salmon
“The introduction of the Railways Bill [this week] represents a significant milestone in the Government’s ongoing programme of rail reform. The Bill introduces a new regulatory framework centred on the creation of Great British Railways (GBR), a public body intended to act as the industry’s ‘directing mind’. GBR will assume responsibility for managing railway infrastructure and delivering the majority of passenger services. The consolidation of these functions within a single organisation is designed to simplify the structure of the sector and provide clearer lines of accountability.
“Whilst the Bill establishes a new regulatory framework, its practical operation and ability to achieve its objectives will depend on further detail to be developed. Key documents to follow include the Secretary of State’s long-term strategy, GBR’s access and use policy (which will govern third party access to the network) and GBR’s licence requirements.
“The Bill will now undergo parliamentary scrutiny. In parallel, the Transport Committee yesterday launched an inquiry inviting contributions from stakeholders across the sector. Engagement during this period will be critical to shaping how the new regime will work in practice.”
TOPIC: The British Broadcasting Corporation versus the President of the United States of America
COMMENT BY: Iona Silverman, Intellectual Property & Media Partner, Freeths
“If Trump does attempt to sue the BBC for defamation, the biggest hurdle he faces is jurisdiction. The Panorama programme in question aired over a year ago, which means he cannot bring a claim in the UK. While he has indicated Florida as his preferred jurisdiction, there is no evidence the programme was ever broadcast there – leaving him without a cause of action. Coupled with the absence of any demonstrable damage, his claim is destined to fail.
This looks like classic Trump posturing: demanding a disproportionate sum without any legal basis to pursue the claim. What is more troubling, however, is that Panorama appears to have edited the content in a way that misrepresented what Trump said. That was unnecessary and will disappoint Panorama’s discerning audience, who expect facts presented fairly so they can form their own views on current affairs. This kind of editorial “massaging” undermines trust and risks damaging both Panorama and the BBC’s reputation – regardless of whether Trump proceeds with litigation.
It’s a timely reminder that litigation is often less about winning or losing, and more about making noise, grabbing headlines, and creating reputational challenges for opponents to navigate.”
TOPIC: The extension by the EHRC of its legal agreement with McDonald’s to prevent sexual harassment in the workplace.
COMMENT BY: Helen Dyke, Senior Solicitor, Employment Team, Harper James
“The extension of the agreement between the EHRC and McDonald’s is a positive step and signals a shift in how employers are expected to prevent sexual harassment at work. It recognises that preventing sexual harassment or any other forms of harm is about making sure policies work in practice, not just on paper. In workplaces where many staff are young or new to employment, the focus on safeguarding and building confidence to speak up is particularly important.
“The commitment to clearer reporting routes, independent handling of complaints involving managers and external oversight of how concerns are dealt with should help to build trust. One of the biggest barriers to reporting is the fear of not being taken seriously or facing negative consequences.
“When workers know that complaints will be assessed fairly and, where necessary, outside of their immediate workplace, they are much more likely to speak up earlier. Ensuring franchisees follow the same standards matters because staff should experience the same level of protection and respect wherever they work, regardless of the individual branch or franchise owner.
“While these steps provide a strong foundation, cultural change does take time. Policies, training and reporting systems are only effective if people feel able to use them. The daily interactions between colleagues, the tone set by managers and the openness of conversations about concerns are what ultimately shape workplace culture.
“Ongoing monitoring, openness about how concerns are handled and meaningful conversations with staff will be important to ensure the changes make a real difference day to day. What will really matter is whether, over time, staff genuinely feel safer, more respected and more able to speak up when something isn’t right.”
TOPIC: The implementation of some tranches of the Renters’ Rights from 1 May 2026
COMMENT BY: David Smith, Property litigation Partner. Spector Constant & Williams
“This will put agents under an immense amount of pressure to get everything done ready for the start date. As the government does not intend to give details of what needs to be in tenancy agreements until early in 2026 there will be very little time to prepare paperwork, train staff and update systems.”
TOPIC: The renewed roll-out of facial recognition vans across a number of police forces
COMMENT BY: Nathan Seymour-Hyde, Crime Partner, Reeds Solicitors LLP
“Many of the widespread concerns about facial recognition technology have been addressed by the safeguards now in place – including advance publication of deployments, clear public signage, rapid deletion of non-matches, and the requirement for officers to manually verify any alert before action is taken. One would hope that such verification occurs before any arrest or search, as false arrests will naturally give rise to complaints and civil legal action in some cases. However, concern also lies in transparency and oversight: the public must have confidence that the technology is used proportionately, accurately, and with proper independent scrutiny. Without clear statutory limits, there remains a real risk of mission creep – a gradual expansion of its use beyond serious criminality into broader areas of policing.”
LEGAL SECTOR APPOINTMENTS OF THE WEEK
McCarthy Denning
Stefan Borson is joining McCarthy Denning as a Partner and its new Head of Sport. Having trained at Addleshaw Goddard, Borson later served as Group General Counsel, Company Secretary and subsequently Chief Executive Officer of Watchstone Group plc. He has also held senior roles as CEO in an advertising and media business and more than 10 years in investment banking, investing and corporate advisory.
Warren Wooldridge, CEO of McCarthy Denning – which positions itself as a ‘Next Generation City law firm’ – commented: “Stefan’s arrival reflects our continued commitment to attracting exceptional legal talent with real-world commercial experience. His combination of legal, financial and regulatory insight adds enormous value for our clients, particularly in fast-moving sectors such as sport, media and technology.”
Stefan Borson commented,“McCarthy Denning’s agile model offers the ideal platform for modern legal practice, combining the flexibility of a consultancy with the depth of a full-service firm. I’m excited to join such a forward-thinking team and to help clients navigate complex corporate and regulatory challenges across both traditional and emerging industries.”
LAWFRONT
Tony McKenna is joining Lawfront (which provides legal services through well-known regional law firm including Farleys, Fisher Jones Greenwood, Nelsons, Slater Heelis, Brachers and Trethowans) as its Chief Information Officer.
Previously with Howard Kennedy, where he spent five years as the firm’s Director of IT and Change McKenna had also lso worked for Magic Circle firms Freshfields and A&O Shearman. For the last two years he served as President of the International Legal Technology Association (ILTA), the leading global association of more than 25,000 legal technologists.
His appointment is said to reflect Lawfront’s commitment to provide its six partner firms with the “highest standard of operational support across technology, business development, marketing, talent acquisition and development, and efficiency”.He will focus particularly on ensuring that the constituent law firms derive the most value from their tech platforms such as Jylo, Avail and AORA.
“Lawfront is fast establishing a reputation for their excellent application of legal technology and I’m excited to be working with the team to support with ongoing growth in this area,” said McKenna. “Legal technology is increasingly central to the operation of any law firm, and I have already been impressed by the excellent work that my colleagues at Lawfront and our partner firms are doing to unlock the benefits offered by innovative technologies.”
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