Edward Fennell’s LEGAL DIARY
Diary news plus insights, commentary and appointments from the legal world
5 December 2025
Editorial contact: fennell.edward@yahoo.com
SHORT THOUGHT FOR THE WEEK: Rebalancing the (Financial) Scales of Justice
Julian Taylor, the senior partner at Simmons & Simmons, attracted some interest this week when he floated the idea that the legal profession should ‘rethink its profit focus’ and ‘question its moral purpose’. While old cynics might have reflected that ‘Oh yes, we’ve heard all this before’ a more measured response might have been to say ’Speak for yourself’.
Of course top lawyers in City firms are earning mega-bucks and, presumably, that’s what gets them out of bed every morning. But there are plenty of lawyers committed to the notions of justice, public service and community benefit who already have a clear moral purpose. The problem is that for many of them the material rewards are so low that they can no longer sustain a career.
The debate about the future of trial by jury plays into this sad story. There’s plenty of money in the legal profession. Maybe a little redistribution could offer a way forward.
The Legal Diarist
In this edition
+ LEGAL DIARY OF THE WEEK
Just for the Record
Bar Almost Everyone (Apart from Oxbridge Firsts
Banging the Drum for Brum
Law Firms in Wartime: London 1940 to Kyiv 2025
+ LEGAL COMMENT OF THE WEEK
on abolishing jury trials, court delays, the Workers Rights Bill, penalties for pornography, food & drink advertising, European financial market reforms
+ LEGAL SECTOR APPOINTMENTS OF THE WEEK
at A&O Shearman and Pillsbury
LEGAL DIARY OF THE WEEK
Just For The Record
The Legal Diary does not affect to be a ‘newspaper of record’ but occasionally a statement is made which cries out to be carved in stone to be there for future generations. Thus it was earlier this week when as large a number of the Bar’s good and great as could be assembled in one press statement issued the following
“We fundamentally disagree with the government’s plan to restrict the deeply entrenched constitutional principle of a jury trial.
The government faces two problems: bearing on the backlog and ensuring we’re never in this position again. We support efforts to do that but have seen no evidence that curtailing jury trials will solve either problem.
We do not see how restricting jury trials will have an impact on the existing backlog. The government itself acknowledged on numerous occasions this week that this proposal will not make a difference any time soon. It hinges on Sir Brian Leveson’s recommendation which has not been piloted or thoroughly modelled.
Crown Courts such as Liverpool have shown that efficiencies and investment of time and resources do make a difference. In Wales, there’s no meaningful backlog due to close and effective co-operation between the Bench and Bar. All the efficiencies we suggested in January – including different case management and defendant delivery time, that have also been recommended by Sir Brian Leveson – do not require legislation. We know they work and would have an impact now.
Resources need to be focused on rebuilding the system and allowing other measures to embed.”
The statement went on to say that the government’s “Draconian approach undermines and attacks a constitutional freedom namely, trial by jury.”
It was then signed (maybe in blood) by Barbara Mills KC, Chair of the Bar Council,
Kirsty Brimelow KC, Vice Chair of the Bar Council, Riel Karmy-Jones KC, Chair of the Criminal Bar Association, Andrew Thomas KC, Vice Chair of the Criminal Bar Association,Claire Davies KC, Leader of the South Eastern Circuit,
Jaime Hamilton KC, Leader of the Northern Circuit, Sarah Jones KC, Leader of the Western Circuit, Jason Pitter KC, Leader of the North Eastern Circuit,
Caroline Rees KC, Leader of the Wales and Chester Circuit, Harpreet Sandhu KC, Leader of the Midland Circuit, Lachlan Stewart, Chair of the Bar Council Young Barristers’ Committee.
Whether this will cut any ice with our gung-ho Lord Chancellor seems somewhat dicey.But at least there is now total clarity about what each side wants.
Bar Almost Everyone (Apart from Oxbridge Firsts)
There are no great surprises in the latest Chambers student’s guide to a career at the Bar.
Nonetheless each generation needs to be reminded of the eternal verities. Hence as Cait Evans, the global talent head of research at Chambers and Partners, explains, “Aspiring barristers face huge competition for pupillages with top academics from a prestigious university a prerequisite at most top sets. Oxbridge graduates still predominate and despite considerable efforts to promote social mobility at the Bar, a disproportionate number of pupils still went to fee-paying schools. This is perhaps unsurprising when we look at how long the journey to a career at the Bar can be, with considerable financial outlays along the way.”
The figures do not lie. Those from fee-paying school continue to make up a strikingly high number of pupils barristers – more than four out of ten – but maybe not surprising is that 77% of pupils have a first-class honours degree to their name. Just over half of future barristers at top sets went to Oxford or Cambridge, with only 11% coming from non-Russell Group universities. Perhaps of more interest is that half of pupils have studied non-law degrees, with history, modern languages and classics being the most common.
The average pupillage award stood at £76,000. However that figure might be misleading. The fees earned by those doing publicly funded civil, criminal or family law is much lower meaning, presumably, that those doing commercial work must be significantly higher.
Moreover given the current crisis over the future of jury trials there is also growing concern that the tap of ‘entry level’ crime work could be turned off. So in a couple of years time we could be looking at a very different picture.
Banging the Drum for Brum
Talking about top barristers let’s not overlook the striking advances being made by Birmingham-based St Philips Chambers which now claims, with some cause, to be ‘the leading regional barristers’ chambers in the UK’.
Evidence for this comes from the chambers’ success in securing top spot in three separate awards – the British Legal Awards last month, the Regional Set of the Year at the Chambers & Partners UK Bar Awards 2025, and Legal 500’s ‘Set Outside London’ back in the Autumn of last year.
“The Chambers & Partners and British Legal Awards titles are a massive statement, particularly following last year’s Legal 500 win,” said Joe Wilson, CEO and Director of Clerking. “It proves consistency. It shows that the collective expertise and work ethic of our barristers, clerking and administration teams is delivering results for clients year after year. I’m incredibly pleased for the whole team; we’ve earned the right to proudly sit alongside the UK’s best sets.”
Advances by St. Philips are reckoned to be in lockstep with progress by Birmingham generally as a legal centre and attracting a wider share of complex and high-value matters. “National and international firms are strengthening their presence in the West Midlands, and St Philips continues to secure work of considerable scale and complexity, reinforcing its role in shaping the region’s legal landscape,” comments the chambers.
Law Firms in Wartime: London 1940 to Kyiv 2025
What do lawyers do in war-time? Some fight – but some keep the wheels of commerce turning to ensure that there remains something worth fighting for.
That’s the theme of a remarkable article The War That Built the City: Lessons in Resilience from Wartime London’s Law Firms by Kateryna Andreieva (Business Development and PR Director at Kyiv law firm Ilyashev & Partners) in the publication ‘Ukraine Law Firm: A Handbook for Foreign Clients ‘ which looks back to the London Blitz of 80 years ago to draw parallels with events in Ukraine today. “Heroism was not confined to those who went to the front,” says Andreieva. “It was displayed daily by colleagues who kept the offices running”.
Deeply researched, Andreieva scrambles across the bomb scarred City of London during World War 2 examining how some of the leading firms survived years of sustained attack.“The experience of British law firms in wartime London offers a powerful historical lens through which to view our own professional transformation,” she explains. “Amid destruction, uncertainty, and national mobilisation, London’s legal community learned to preserve integrity, continuity, and trust – the same values now being tested in Ukraine’s legal market.”
Situated at the epicentre of the German bombardment of the capital it was no surprise that the offices of many leading law firms were blasted apart. For example Bird & Bird’s offices in Grays Inn Square were reduced to rubble while 85 years ago to this month Linklaters & Paines’ offices in Bond Court, Walbrook were turned into a pile of ashes. A few weeks later Theodore Goddard – now, of course, Addleshaw Goddard – saw its offices in Serjeants’ Inn so totally destroyed that none of its client files survived. Yet somehow the firm picked itself up and resumed work with a complete determination to see it through.
There were similar stories at many other firms – bearing in mind of course that many of the older lawyers had probably seen active service themselves during the First World War. Interestingly, the nature of the war also reshaped the client base and legal focus of many firms.“The war also accelerated a fundamental shift in client base,” explains Andreieva.“Firms that had once depended on the landed gentry and private wealth turned increasingly toward commercial and industrial clients – particularly in sectors vital to the war effort such as manufacturing, finance, and technology. This realignment laid the foundations for the modern City firm: internationally connected, commercially oriented, and structurally resilient.”
So this is a wonderfully interesting article. But the parallels with today are not overlooked. “Across Ukraine, lawyers are now writing their own chapter of professional history,” she concludes. “They are working through air raids, rebuilding offices, defending clients and principles under fire – quite literally. Perhaps it is time to start recording these stories, so that one day another generation of lawyers will read them with the same awe and respect with which we now look at London’s legal community of the 1940s.
Because in every era, it is not offices or case files that define a law firm – it is the people who stand their ground when history tests them most.”
Read the article in full at https://ukrainianlawfirms.com/the-war-that-built-the-city-lessons-in-resilience-from-wartime-londons-law-firms/
Kateryna Andreieva is a Kyiv-born lawyer by training and began her career as a judicial and political correspondent for leading business newspapers. She has spent 15 years in the legal sector, the past eleven with dispute resolution firm, Ilyashev & Partners, where she directs business development and oversees the firm’s international profile.
FULL DISCLOSURE: In her article Kateryna Andreieva makes reference to some research by Edward Fennell, editor of the Legal Diary, in connection with Bird & Bird’s wartime story.
LEGAL COMMENT OF THE WEEK
TOPIC: Proposed reduction in use of trial by jury in the justice system
COMMENT BY: Richard Edwards, University of Exeter Law School
“It is misleading to claim, as the Ministry of Justice now does, that “there is no right to a jury trial.” Article 11 of the Bill of Rights 1689, one of the founding documents of our constitution, expressly safeguards juries, stating that “Jurors ought to be duly impanelled and returned”. This provision was designed to prevent the Crown from manipulating or bypassing juries. Any proposal to remove jury trial from the great majority of serious criminal cases is not an administrative adjustment: it is a repudiation of the constitutional settlement of 1689.
“In fact, the jury is one of the oldest and most important democratic institutions in the English constitution. Through it, the people themselves exercise sovereign judgment under the discipline of law and the supervision of the Crown’s judges. It is precisely because it is democratic that it stands as a bulwark against state overreach, prosecutorial excess, and unconscious bias. Remove it, and you remove not only the community from the administration of justice but also a vital democratic check on state power. That is not efficiency; it is constitutional amputation.
“This unprincipled reform is also wholly unsupported by the reasons the Lord Chancellor has advanced. Each claim is contradicted by the evidence.
“The reforms overlook the fact that judges can and do exhibit measurable prosecution-leaning in summings-up and interventions. That is precisely why verdicts in serious criminal cases should not be left to a single state official.
“The case for restricting jury trial collapses under scrutiny. These reforms would diminish justice, weaken public trust, and erode a constitutional safeguard that has served this country for centuries.”
COMMENT BY: Neil Swift, Partner, Peters & Peters
“Leaving aside the principled objection to removing the right to jury trial, there are a number of very practical issues with the proposals.
“Many offences have a maximum sentence of imprisonment of 5, 7, 10 or 14 years. It is not clear what mechanism will be used to decide whether an accused charged with such an offence is likely to receive a sentence of up to three years, but assuming the defence has a say, this creates a perverse incentive for the defence to characterise alleged offences as more serious to get the case before a jury.”
“It is said that the use of trial by judge alone will save time and resources. However, no consideration seems to have been given to the length of time it will take for a judge to produce a written judgment, carefully summarising and addressing all of the evidence. Juries are not the cause of the backlog, but this proposal may add to it. “
COMMENT BY: Matthew Hardcastle, partner in the Criminal Litigation team, Kingsley Napley LLP
“The build-up to this announcement has been an utter mess, but the continued ‘silver-bullet’ and headline driven approach to change is deeply disappointing. Changing some aspects of the criminal justice system will not magically solve systemic issues.
The government has placed great weight on the £550-million earmarked for victim support services, but the greatest support for victims is an efficient justice system. The investigation and prosecution of criminal cases require proper funding for the police, for court staff, for the prosecution, for the defence, and for probation. The need for funding isn’t limited to salaries, it is needed to fix and maintain public buildings, to improve failing or clunky technology, and for investment to speed up simple administrative tasks. None of this is glamorous, but it is essential and long overdue.
Even if this was wrong and an increased number of juryless trials was in fact the panacea which led to the clearing of the court backlog, trial dates are only one part of the problem. The historic cuts to police budgets mean that criminal investigations routinely take years. Unless this is also fixed, you would then run the risk of a rollercoaster justice system: a long build-up, where there is little to no engagement with the defence, followed by a burst of speed in court.
The Police and Criminal Evidence Act was introduced in 1984 but came into force in 1986. The two-year delay was intentional as it gave time for vital work of training for steady, thought through, change. It may now seem quaint, but for fundamental change there needs to be grip from the bottom-up and long-term planning rather than a repetitive cycle of reaching for a headline grabbing quick fix.”
COMMENT BY: David Hardstaff, Serious and General Crime Partner, BCL Solicitors
“Restricting jury trials is like selling the family silver. Even though the reforms are not as far-reaching as many feared, any step towards scaling back a core democratic safeguard is unambitious and signals a failure of governance. Instead of acknowledging a justice system in crisis, ministers are blaming defendants – yet everyone within the system knows the real cause is decades of underinvestment. Temporary measures may be unavoidable, but the answer lies in modernising our courts and using technology to fix what is, at its core, a systems failure.”
COMMENT BY: Lloyd Firth, Partner, WilmerHale
“The proposed removal of even the right to elect a jury trial in cases of complex fraud and other financial crimes is unprincipled, neither in the interests of justice nor empirically supported, and will have only a negligible impact on reducing the Crown Court backlog. A core bulwark of our legal system is being removed in reliance on anecdotal evidence and in the service of naked political expediency.”
COMMENT BY: Scott Primmer, Private Crime Partner, Reeds Solicitors LLP
“The Government is seeking to deal with the back log of cases in the criminal justice system. Rather than address the fundamental issue, which is a chronic underfunding of the Courts, Crown Prosecution Service, and legal funding, they prefer to remove fundamental rights of citizens that have existed for hundreds of years. While this may enable the Courts to process some cases quicker, at what cost? Ultimately in the long run, over time the lack of funding will continue to place greater stress on the system until it collapses. “
TOPIC: Delays in the Crown Courts
COMMENT BY: Claire Waxman OBE, Victims’ Commissioner designate
“As I step down as London Victims’ Commissioner after eight years, countless victim stories will stick with me. But one constant theme has overshadowed my entire tenure: the crushing delays of the Crown Court backlog.We have watched the unacceptable become the accepted norm as the wait for justice stretched from months to years. It is 2025, yet I am sitting with victims who are staring down trial dates in 2030. Five years is an unconscionably long time to ask anyone to sit with their trauma. Victims might be forgiven for asking if it is they who are being handed a sentence, not the offender. It is not just the agonising wait that victims endure; it is the constant drumbeat of uncertainty, adjourned hearings, and the inability to recover from trauma because the process won’t let them. Our court system has been turned into an endurance test that breaks the very people it is meant to serve. As I look ahead to assuming the national Victims’ Commissioner role in the new year, my message is clear: we must finally turn the tide on this crisis.”
TOPIC: The £1m fine issued to pornography company AVS Group, after it was found that the company did not have strong enough age checks
COMMENT BY: Clive Summerfield, CEO of FARx, the AI fused-biometrics company
“Age restrictions exist for a reason, but enforcement shouldn’t be confined to the adult industry alone… A clear, material penalty tells providers that “good enough” checks are no longer acceptable, and that protecting young people is a societal duty, not a tick-box exercise.
“Ofcom’s move to fine porn company AVS Group Ltd £1m for failing to put in place sufficiently robust age checks is a welcome and necessary one.
“The Online Safety Act is an important step but to truly reduce risk and harm, mainstream social media platforms need tighter limits for younger users and better guardrails after sign-up. Age assurance can’t be a one-off hurdle; you must verify that the same real person remains present each time they’re accessing the device.”
TOPIC: Proposals to speed up the introduction of the Workers’ Rights bill in Parliament
COMMENT BY: Alex Elliott, Associate, Employment team, Birketts LLP
“The government’s decision to accept a shorter six-month qualifying period rather than removing it altogether has come as a relief to employers and HR professionals, partly due to the added certainly this provides regarding employers’ obligations. However, whereas the proposal for day-one protection would have required significant consultation and detailed secondary legislation prior to its implementation – particularly concerning the arrangements which would apply during the so-called ‘initial period of employment’ – this will no longer be strictly necessary for the implementation of a six-month qualifying period, which is far more straightforward. It is therefore entirely feasible for this change to be implemented sooner than is currently expected.
“We will need to see if the proposal is supported by the government when the Employment Rights Bill returns to the House of Commons on 8 December.
“It is worth noting that the government also plans to lift the current compensation cap in unfair dismissal claims and ensure that the qualifying period can only be amended via primary legislation (making it harder for future governments to increase it).”
TOPIC: The new restrictions on the advertising of food and drink products to be administered through the UK Advertising Codes
COMMENT BY: Iona Silverman, Intellectual Property & Media Partner, Freeths
“From 5 January, strict new rules will prohibit advertising ‘less healthy’ food and drink on TV between 5.30pm- 9pm and in paid online ads at any time. Today’s ASA statement adds important clarifications – from treating programme sponsorship as advertising, to tightening restrictions around HFSS products, influencer content and what counts as a ‘recognisable’ less healthy item. While brand advertising is still permitted, the exemptions are narrow and heavily dependent on the content of each ad. SMEs benefit from specific reliefs, but larger brands must prepare for significant compliance obligations. Although framed as guidance, these updates effectively amend existing legislation, meaning breaches carry legal consequences. This is a complex and fast-moving area, and brands should review campaigns now to ensure they are ready.”
TOPIC: The European Commission’s proposed financial-market reforms designed to simplify rules for trading, post-trading, and asset management
COMMENT BY: Nathaniel Lalone, Financial Markets and Funds partner, Katten Muchin Rosenman LLP
“If done correctly, the transfer of supervisory powers to the European level could help to reduce regulatory overlaps and achieve greater efficiencies, in particular for market infrastructures that in effect service the EU as a whole. But centralisation for its own sake, without a corresponding transfer of expertise and resources, could in fact lead to additional duplication of efforts, in particular in the event that national regulators retain a significant role in the oversight process. The question then is whether the EU intends a radical break from its existing practice or is content to pursue a “muddle along” strategy that ultimately leaves things much as they are.”
LEGAL SECTOR APPOINTMENTS OF THE WEEK
A&O SHEARMAN
Shaima Bakhshhas been appointed as a corporate partner in the office of A&O Shearman in Riyadh and will join the firm in January. Previously an associate at Dentons(2020-2021), where she specialized in corporate transactional and advisory work, particularly in joint ventures and M&A deals in Saudi Arabia’s energy sector, Bakhsh hadalso held positions at Khoshaim & Associates (in cooperation with Allen & Overy) where shegained experience in complex deal negotiations and strategic transactions. Her most recent role was at Hassana Investment Company(Riyadh, Saudi Arabia) where she was promoted to General Counsel in 2023.
“Shaima brings a rare combination of board‑level insight and execution experience in the Kingdom,” said Hosam Ibn Ghaith, managing partner of A&O Shearman’s Riyadh office. “Her arrival strengthens our on‑the‑ground capability in Riyadh and enhances how we help clients navigate Saudi Arabia’s fast‑moving corporate landscape.”
Shaima said, “The Kingdom offers immense opportunity for high-impact client work amid the transformation, growth, and institutionalization spurred on by Vision 2030. I’m delighted to join A&O Shearman at such a pivotal time for the Saudi market.”
NOTE: Vision 2030 is a ‘Blueprint that is diversifying the economy, empowering citizens, creating a vibrant environment for both local and international investors, and establishing Saudi Arabia as a global leader’.
PILLSBURY
Peter O’Hare has joined the Finance & Restructuring practice of Pillsbury as a partner in the in London office. Recognised by Chambers UK as a leading practitioner in the Asset Finance: Aviation Finance category, O’Hare was previously at K&L Gates. His work has spanned non-U.S. Enhanced Equipment Trust Certificates, asset-backed securities, M&A, and large portfolio and warehouse financings, as well as restructurings, workouts, and repossessions.
“Pete’s arrival strengthens our market-leading global aircraft finance practice, reinforces our commitment to providing clients with unparalleled industry expertise and reflects Pillsbury’s ongoing commitment to the growth of the London office,” said Pillsbury Global Head of Asset Finance Graham Tyler.
Meanwhile Mark Lessard, Pillsbury’s Global Head of Finance & Restructuring added that, “Pete has a stellar reputation, wide-ranging experience, and deep connections within the aviation sector. He strengthens our outstanding aviation finance offering and does so at a time when market conditions are increasingly favorable for aircraft purchasers and lessors. We are thrilled to welcome him to the Pillsbury team.”
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