Edward Fennell’s LEGAL DIARY
Diary news plus insights, commentary and appointments from the legal world
21 November 2025
Editorial contact: fennell.edward@yahoo.com
SHORT THOUGHT FOR THE WEEK: Caught Out?
Alarm bells seem to be sounding loud and clear about the fragile state of the justice system in the UK. See the report below from the House of Lords about its concern over the erosion of respect for law and order in British society. Meanwhile the figures keep stacking up on delays in the courts. No great surprise then that emergency measures are being considered including reports that the Ministry of Justice intends to limit trial by jury (as set out in Sir Brian Leveson’s proposals).
But care must be taken. As CILEX (Chartered Institute of Legal Executives) commented, “Our criminal courts are in crisis and we desperately need solutions that provide swifter redress for the victims of crime, but limiting access to jury trials has potentially huge implications for access to justice. Justice cannot be done on the cheap.
What’s more, our members are concerned that the move risks piling the extra caseload onto other, already overstretched courts, placing them under further strain.”
It was probably unrealistic to expect that Sir Keir Starmer, a human rights lawyer, would have much aptitude to run the British economy but as the former head of the CPS he should be able to get to grips with the justice system. And if he can’t, then who can?
The LegalDiarist
In this edition
+ LEGAL DIARY OF THE WEEK
Smarter Benefits of Working for Law Firms
Rule of Law in the Balance in the UK?
Minister Backs CILEX
Tour de Law 2025: Another Great Money Spinner
+ CONTRIBUTED ARTICLES OF THE WEEK
The Legal and Compliance Risks in Remote Hiring Scams by Jonathan Armstrong
Combatting insurance fraud: What’s to be done? by Miles Hepworth
+ LEGAL COMMENT OF THE WEEK
on sanctions on ‘Media Land’, the Budget, the Employment Rights Bill, online pricing and planning law
+ APPOINTMENTS OF THE WEEK
at AKIN
LEGAL DIARY OF THE WEEK
Smarter Benefits of Working for Law Firms
Competition to recruit and retain the top talent is driving an ever more nuanced package of benefits and support for law firm staff according to The Employee Benefits in the Legal Sector 2025/26 report from Howden Employee Benefits, in partnership with People in Law.
“The legal profession is built on its talented people but people’s needs and expectations are evolving fast.,” said James Clowser, Client Director, Legal Sector Consulting at Howden Employee Benefits. “Firms are under pressure to deliver more impact from every pound spent, and that’s driving a smarter, more insight-led approach to benefit design.
The firms that will thrive are those that use data to understand what matters most to their people, invest where it strengthens culture, and communicate clearly. It’s about making sure people have the support they need to stay healthy, engaged and confident in their careers”.
The majority of firms now offer a wide range of wellbeing support, including Employee Assistance Programmes (EAPs) and virtual GP access, with both being available at over 90% of firms. Support for menopause and neurodiversity is also expanding, particularly among larger London practices.
Fiona Wilson, Senior Manager at People in Law, commented: “It’s encouraging to see firms broadening their wellbeing offer, but it’s not just about variety — it’s about relevance. The most effective programmes are built on listening to employees and shaping support that genuinely fits their needs.”
James Clowser added, “The strongest firms will be those that look ahead by making evidence-based decisions and invest where it counts. Those that combine data, insight and clear purpose will stand out in the legal market. Benefits are a clear reflection of how a firm values its people and builds its culture.”
The Employee Benefits in the Legal Sector 2025/26 report is available to download at: https://heyzine.com/flip-book/legal-sector-report-2025
Rule of Law in the Balance in the UK?
The rule of law cannot be taken for granted – that is the sobering message in ‘Rule of law: holding the line between anarchy and tyranny’, a report from the House of Lords Constitution Committee published this week.
“The rule of law in the UK is being weakened, and everyone must take steps to protect it against further erosion,” says the Committee which argues that the rule of law is ‘one of the core constitutional principles underpinning the UK’s democracy’ but there is an urgent need for diligence in its protection.
- We must not be complacent about the strength of the rule of law in the UK. Without a strong rule of law tradition and sense of values, we risk mob rule and anarchy
- There is a sense that laws are being broken without consequence, including by public figures, which is diminishing public support for the rule of law. An apparent inability to address shop theft, phone theft and other visible crimes contributes to this
- An ineffective justice system where people face substantial delays and may have to represent themselves due to the lack of access to legal support, risks denying many people true justice
- Questioning the integrity of the judiciary and spreading misinformation is unacceptable and feeds distrust in the justice system. This at times can be unfounded and exacerbated by the media.
Lord Strathclyde, Chair of the Constitution Committee said, “We should be proud of our long history of the rule of law in the United Kingdom and the role it plays in ensuring we have peaceful communities and in underpinning business and trade. But we cannot be complacent. This stability is not guaranteed and protecting the rule of law is something that everyone, not only politicians and lawyers, should both want to do and actively be doing.
“The erosion of trust in the rule of law has become particularly acute in recent years, as law breaking with apparent impunity in the form of shop theft and other visible crimes, alongside delays and backlogs in the courts, have now become part of our everyday lives.
“The Government should be at the forefront of restoring our belief in the rule of law. It needs to take strong and visible action to promote and uphold this important constitutional value and this should be underpinned by addressing the weaknesses in our justice system.
“This is a crucial moment and decisive action must be taken.”
Respect for the rule of law should be ‘a strong cultural norm that is woven into everyday lives’.
In order to rebuild this cultural norm, everyone, in particular, politicians and the Government need to take an active role, and this must start now, the report urges. “Failing to do so risks the rise of extremist political parties, growing antipathy towards democracy, and, ultimately, creating space for dictatorship,” it warns.
Minister Backs CILEX
Justice minister Sarah Sackman gave a ringing endorsement last week to the role of CILEX (The Chartered Institute of Legal Executives) in driving forward change and enhancing opportunities for a more diverse legal profession while itself being “a champion of fairness, inclusion and opportunity in the law.”
Speaking at CILEX’s annual member conference Ms Sackman said, “If we are going to truly serve the public, then we need to look like them. You are leading the way, which the bar, the solicitor profession, everybody can learn from.
“More than three-quarters of you are women and three-quarters state school educated. Nearly two-thirds of you were the first in your family to attend university and 16% are from an ethnic minority background. This is an engine of social mobility.
“But we have so much further to go in diversifying routes into the legal sector, bringing in new viewpoints, new approaches, new experiences. It enhances, modernises and refreshes our justice system.
“Crucially, it underpins access to justice. It makes sure that nobody out there feels that the system isn’t there for them or that they won’t get a fair hearing or that their problems will be dismissed or misunderstood.”
This is why, the minister said, the government is working to remove barriers to CILEX lawyers, such as the provision in the Victims and Courts Bill currently going through Parliament that will support chartered legal executives to become Crown Prosecutors – currently the CPS is restricted in appointing legal professionals who are not solicitors and barristers. Widening the talent pool “is how we create a stronger justice system”, she said.
Sackman went on to speak about the “enormous strain” the justice system is under and the steps the Ministry of Justice is taking to tackle it. “The rebuilding effort is underway, but it’s going to take time, it’s going to take investment, it’s going to take reform, and it’s going to take fundamental modernisation.
“This is going to be a national team effort to restore our justice system to where it should be, all of us pulling in the same direction to keep the system moving.”
Tour de Law 2025: Another Great Money Spinner
The dedicated ‘off-road’ cyclists (as we describe them) who return each year to take on the spills and thrills of the annual Tour de Law fund-raiser for Breast Cancer Now can put their feet up content in the knowledge that they have raised a cool £123K by their efforts last month.
Bringing together lawyers from all sorts of backgrounds into an intense round of inter-firm competition an astonishing 11,911.53 kilometres was completed over the two-day challenge. All good fun of course but the bragging rights when it was over and the sweat and grime of the pedals had been wiped away went to Kirkland & Ellis LLP as the Tour de Law 2025 champions. Not only had they put in 901.44 kilometres but they could also claim the ‘Star Fundraising’ Award for raising a tyre-inflating £23,055.
Other participants who put in a good account of themselves included Latham & Watkins LLP, Willkie Farr & Gallagher LLP, Simpson Thacher & Bartlett LLP, Outer Temple Chambers, and first timers Northridge Law LLP
“The law firms and chambers have excelled again this year, raising an incredible amount,” said Hannah Adam, Head of Relationship Fundraising at Breast Cancer Now. “With 55,000 women and 400 men diagnosed with breast cancer every year – that’s a woman every 9 minutes and a man every day – our work has never been more needed. We’re so thankful to everyone who took part and we’re already looking forward to seeing whether Kirkland & Ellis LLP can be knocked off the top spot next year.”
If you fancy taking on that challenge as part of Tour de Law 2026 then put it in your diary for 14 and 15 October 2026 and register your interest now by emailing tourdelaw@breastcancernow.org.
CONTRIBUTED ARTICLES OF THE WEEK
The Legal and Compliance Risks in Remote Hiring Scams
by Jonathan Armstrong
As remote work becomes standard practice, organisations are exposing themselves to significant, and often underestimated, legal and regulatory risks. Increasingly, the biggest threat might not just be people outside the firm but the candidates they hire.
Recent cases highlight the scale of the problem. Last year, federal prosecutors in Missouri, USA said North Korean IT operatives had generated around $88 million (£51.5 million) through fake remote work schemes, funnelling the proceeds back to fund weapons developmenti. In April, Google warned that Europe, particularly the UK, has become a prime target for these hoax workersi.
The legal fallout for businesses
For UK organisations, the legal ramifications are serious. Inadvertently employing a North Korean national can breach UK financial sanctions, carrying potential prison sentences of up to seven yearsiii. Regulators also expect firms to demonstrate structured, auditable due diligence; ignorance is unlikely to be a defence.
These scams are increasingly sophisticated. Operatives deploy AI-generated profile photos, fabricated LinkedIn histories, and fake credentials, often masking their true locations with VPNs. Many HR teams underestimate these tactics, and without proper education businesses may fail to recognise early warning signs.
A major legal exposure lies in the use of external recruitment agencies. Many are incentivised by placement volume rather than compliance. Firms should reassess these relationships and embed contractual obligations around sanctions checks, identity verification, and auditability. Recruiters must share responsibility for due diligence, not simply for filling roles.
Verification should also never sit solely with hiring managers. Separating recruitment decisions from vetting processes strengthens defensibility. An independent team should conduct background checks, reference reviews, and social media assessments to ensure impartiality and reduce discrimination risks.
Spotting red flags
Candidates reluctant to appear on video, requesting long lead times, presenting overqualified profiles, or using AI-generated images, all warrant scrutiny. No single issue confirms fraud, but combined, anything out of the ordinary should trigger immediate investigation.
Technology can support checks by monitoring IP addresses and time zones, and running reverse-image searches, but human judgment remains essential. Sophisticated actors often use spoofing tools to disguise their identity and mules to attend interviews and add credibility.
Given the sanctions landscape, following guidance from the UK Office of Financial Sanctions Implementation (OFSI) is essential. Where uncertainty arises, organisations should seek specialist legal advice.
Key steps for firms:
• Educate HR, compliance, and management
• Implement independent vetting systems
• Reassess third-party recruiter obligations
• Monitor for red flags
• Use technology to support verification
• Act immediately on suspicions
• Review OFSI guidance regularly
• Seek expert legal advice
Robust vetting and strong legal awareness are now essential to avoid becoming an unwitting route for international cybercrime.
Jonathan Armstrong is a Partner at Punter Southall Law
Combatting insurance fraud: What’s to be done?
by Miles Hepworth
The response to the multitude of fraudulent claims facing insurance companies needs to be market wide. A consistent approach by all interested parties is required and the judiciaries’ part in this is an important one.
It has become increasingly apparent that certain insurance claims are less about the claimants, and more about the entities behind the claims.
Since the advent of fixed recoverable costs insurers have seen growth in the layering of claims. This has become even more pronounced after the Civil Liabilities Act and Whiplash Reforms. Toxic combinations of entities working together to deliberately layer claims in order to increase compensation and consequentially increase costs. Examples include the addition of claims for physiotherapy or CBT, but also significant additional heads of claim such as Psychological or ENT injuries.
This is where a considered and consistent approach by the judiciary can make an enormous difference in terms of drawing lines in the sand, through adverse judicial comment, debarring reliance on medical evidence, striking out claims and even non-party or wasted costs orders. Such an approach effectively disrupts concerning patterns of behaviour but also raises awareness within the wider market.
Thankfully we have started to see a real uptake on the part of many judges in looking beyond the claimant, and in directly questioning the conduct of experts and other entities and imposing cost penalties where appropriate.
Judges have started recognising changes in behaviour linked to certain milestones, such as the Whiplash Reforms and the “co-incidental” increase in Psychological and ENT claims. They have also shown greater willingness to require experts give oral evidence at trial so that such issues can be explored in more detail.
In the case of Khan v Aviva the Court specifically referenced collusion by solicitors, the medical agency and other parties in what was a fundamentally dishonest and deliberately layered claim. Similar fact evidence showing the same pattern of behaviour in a number of claims was allowed by the court and was crucial to the outcome.
More recently we have seen judges grouping cases together for future case management where the claims all feature the same concerns around preparation of the medical reports. We have seen the same where the conduct of claimant solicitors stands out from wider market practices.
Encouragingly, judges have provided significant adverse judicial comments against Psychological and ENT experts such that they are no longer being instructed. Adverse costs orders have been made against medical experts, and we have even seen a Physiotherapy treatment agency joined into proceedings for the purpose of costs.
Is there always consistency? No!
Some judges have argued that the conduct of an expert is a matter for the regulators. Experience, however, tells us that the regulators will engage with far more interest and vigour where there are robust decisions and adverse judicial comment in respect of those experts.
Are we seeing a more consistent approach on the whole? Yes, but there is a way to go yet.
Robust decisions and judicial comment such as those referred to above are key to effective wider market disruption to the ever more concerning patterns of behaviour.
Miles Hepworth is a Member of the Fraud Sector Focus Team (SFT), Forum of Insurance Lawyers (FOIL)
LEGAL COMMENT OF THE WEEK
TOPIC: The UK Government’s announcement this week of coordinated sanctions and indictments targeting the Russia-based “Media Land” cybercrime syndicate and associated hosting providers
COMMENT BY: John Binns, Partner and head of the sanctions practice, BCL Solicitors
“This action marks a further escalation in the UK’s innovative use of the financial sanctions regime to disrupt serious and organised cybercrime where traditional prosecution routes remain challenging.
Sanctions offer distinct advantages in this context. They can be deployed rapidly and extraterritorially, impose immediate financial and reputational consequences on designated individuals and entities (as well as those who deal with them), and signal unequivocal intolerance of such activity – all without the practical difficulties of securing arrests or extradition from non-cooperative jurisdictions.
Nevertheless, the tool has inherent limitations. The evidential threshold for designation under the regulations is significantly lower than any in the criminal process, and the real-world impact on sophisticated actors operating primarily in hostile jurisdictions can be modest. Furthermore, each new wave of designations adds to the already considerable compliance burden placed on UK financial institutions and businesses.
While sanctions are undoubtedly a valuable addition to the law-enforcement toolkit against transnational cybercrime, they deliver a form of administrative rather than criminal justice and are best viewed as potentially complementing – rather than supplanting – efforts to secure arrests, prosecutions, and asset forfeiture through the courts.”
TOPIC: The forthcoming Budget
COMMENT BY: The Private Client Team at Payne Hicks Beach ( Basil Dixon, Robert Brodrick, Phineas Hirsch and Frederick Bjorn)
“There has probably never been a budget that has been trailed so much in advance but about what will actually be announced so little is known.
“For the last six months it seems like the chancellor has changed her mind on a weekly basis and well might the Speaker have described this jarring fiscal (mis)adventure as a “Hokey Cokey Budget”.
“From what we have heard, it looks like Income Tax rates will not be going up but other than that what will happen really is anyone’s guess, albeit the introduction of a Wealth Tax (in its purest form) or further Non-Dom changes seem unlikely.
“We do know though that the chancellor needs more money (lots of it) so it seems inevitable that taxes will be raised. Only the Chancellor knows which piggy banks are going to be raided but we will be watching the following particularly closely:
- Changes to the IHT gifting regime (will the 7-year PET regime be extend or even abolished?)
- Changes to the IHT regime for trusts
- Increases to the rate of CGT
- Limitations to the Main Residence Relief for CGT
- Changes to the tax-free CGT uplift available on death
- Changes to the pension rules
- Introduction of a Mansion Tax in one form or another
- Income Tax bands being frozen or even lowered
- Introduction of an ‘Exit Tax’ for individuals who emigrate from the UK
“After half a year of trailing, U-turns and intense speculation there is now under a week to go and whatever is announced on 26 November, we will at last know where we stand, and that’s what it’s all about.”
TOPIC: The Employment Rights Bill and its likely impact on the backlog of employment tribunal claims waiting to be heard
Comment by: Andy Talbot, Director of Broker, ATE & Marketing
“A year ago, we warned that the government’s new Employment Rights Bill was incompatible with the failing employment tribunal system. The situation now is so much worse.
There is a moral argument that the fairness and legality of an employee’s dismissal should not depend on their length of service, but reform is meaningless with a tribunal system as broken as this.
Delays in our justice system act as brakes on the economy. Smaller businesses are reluctant to hire new staff and invest in growth with employment and other claims hanging over them.
It seems sensible to stagger or delay the introduction of the day-one right to claim unfair dismissal. There’s little point in granting workers a right from the first day of their employment that it might take years for them to exercise.”
The data published by HMCTS this week[1] show that the ‘Employment Tribunal Open Caseload’ stood at 61,163 cases, at the end of September. The total in September 2024 was 48,465. This follows an increase of more than 20% the previous year.
The total number of cases includes both single claims and multiple claims (claims involving multiple claimants) so the number of employees waiting for their case to come before a tribunal will be hundreds of thousands.
The total number of ‘Employment Tribunal Disposals’ over the preceding 12 months was 35,271, an increase of 11.75% on the same period a year earlier[2]. However, the number of ‘Employment Tribunal Receipts’ in the 12 months to September was 48,400 against 40,523, representing an increase of almost 20%.”
TOPIC: The Competition and Markets Authority’s (CMA) announcement of a major package of action regarding online pricing ( including ‘drip pricing’ and ‘pressure selling’) under the new Digital Markets, Competition and Consumers Act 2024 (DMCCA).
COMMENT BY: Iona Silverman, Intellectual Property & Media Partner, Freeths
“The CMA has announced that it will investigate the way in which eight businesses communicate their pricing to consumers. The Digital Markets, Competition and Consumers Act 2024 recently introduced new rules on drip pricing and hidden prices, which the CMA appears keen to be seen to enforce. The same legislation gave the CMA the power to issue fines of up to 10% of global turnover for breach of consumer laws – powers which it is yet to exercise.
“While it is encouraging to see enforcement action from the CMA, critics will say that investigating eight companies for price transparency doesn’t go far enough. The AA Driving School and BSM Driving School are being investigated over their additional mandatory fees – specifically, whether these fees are included in the total price the consumer sees at the beginning of the purchase process. These two companies are far from the only ones applying this layered pricing: airlines in particular are guilty of applying additional fees for seat booking (essentially a mandatory hidden cost for families, unless you are happy for your three-year old to sit at the other end of the plane from you), luggage, speedy boarding and more. This makes price comparison nearly impossible and consumers are often caught out with hidden costs.
“Homeware retailers Wayfair, Applicances Direct and Marks Electrical are being investigated for not ending time-limited sales when they say they will, however again they are far from the only ones employing this tactic. A number of retailers offer cyclical sales (moving from one form of discount to another, such that the discounted price is the real price) however they do not appear to be under investigation here.
“Many of my clients ask me why they aren’t allowed to present prices or discounts in a certain way when they can see that their competitors are; this CMA investigation is a reminder that the regulators do take action. Retailers abiding by the rules will be glad not to be put under the spotlight, and to be exempt from any potential expansion of the CMA’s investigation and/or fines for breach of the regulations.”
TOPIC: The likelihood that planning applications for schemes comprising more than 150 homes will be referred directly to central government thereby bypassing council planning committees.
COMMENT BY: Will Thomas, partner in planning, Browne Jacobson
“Bypassing local authorities to call in applications for more than 150 homes to the Secretary of State will still require the involvement of the Planning Inspectorate, which may face a significant influx of applications it hasn’t dealt with until now.
“Moving this administrative layer from local to central government therefore raises questions about whether sufficient capacity exists within the civil service – and whether a better solution would be to resource local authority planning departments more effectively.
“It’s important that decisions aren’t rushed and all the necessary considerations are still considered to ensure that development is well planned. Forcing through large-scale housing projects too rapidly could increase tensions between communities and government, so the government’s housebuilding ambitions must be matched by a drive to upgrade critical infrastructure, such as schools, hospitals and transport systems.
“More broadly, the development industry should continue to work closely with councils to meaningfully engage communities and proactively mitigate the disruption caused by new housing before it arises, ensuring the economic and social benefits of development is felt in the villages, towns and cities accommodating it first and foremost.“
LEGAL SECTOR APPOINTMENTS OF THE WEEK
AKIN
Angela Becker has joined Akin as a partner in the private equity practice in London. The intention is that she will work closely with Akin’s global private equity, M&A, finance, tax and antitrust teams to support clients from initial investment through portfolio management and exits. Her arrival follows a period of sustained growth for Akin’s London private equity practice, which has seen increasing instructions from leading sponsors and sponsor-backed corporates on complex, high-value mandates across the UK and Europe.
“Angela’s addition builds on the significant momentum of our private equity team in London, and globally,” said Daniel Walsh, Akin co-chair based in London. “Her commercial approach and deep experience advising sponsors and corporates on complex, cross-border deals make her an excellent fit for our expanding platform.”
David Sewell, co-head of the corporate practice at Akin, commented, “Angela’s arrival adds further depth to our transactional offering in London and globally. With Dan Oates having recently joined the team, together they bring complementary experience that enhances the cross-border support we provide to sponsors on sophisticated, high-value transactions.”
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