Edward Fennell’s LEGAL DIARY
Diary news plus insights, commentary and appointments from the legal world
6 February 2026
Editorial contact: fennell.edward@yahoo.com
SHORT THOUGHT FOR THE WEEK: Gating Epstein
Condemnation by association seems to be the rule of thumb in the midst of the mayhem generated by the release of the Epstein papers. One might almost suggest that we are (only temporarily one hopes) in a Stalinist moment where the mere fact of a person being referenced by Epstein or having attended one of his parties is enough to generate malign surmise. Lawyers and law firms have already been caught up in this witch hunt.
So in the next few weeks we can expect easy pickings for sensation seekers. But surely some caution is warranted. Epstein was good at inveigling his way into powerful groups. His contact book must have been enormous. So, more than ever, attention to the law is essential. Evidence of actual wrong-doing should precede wild speculation.
The LegalDiarist
In this edition
+ LEGAL DIARY OF THE WEEK
Apply Now for an Anthony Lester Fellowship to Support Practical Legal Change
Shock and Horror As Whiplash Agreement is Reached
Not A Dogmatic Merger
+ CONTRIBUTED ARTICLE OF THE WEEK
PARALEGALS: THE PEOPLE WHO PROVIDE LEGAL RESILIENCE
by Christian Hill
+ LEGAL COMMENT OF THE WEEK
Rule 40 of the Olympic Charter; The UK’s Information Commissioner’s Office (ICO) formal investigations into X Internet Unlimited Company (XIUC) and X.AI LLC (X.AI); Sir Brian Leveson’s Independent Review of the Criminal Courts; the Hickson Review and improving access to finance and entrepreneurship skills for university spin-outs; the Loh-Gronager Pre-Nup Case; the University of Sussex’s judicial review into OfS freedom of speech decision; men secretly filming women in public places
+ APPOINTMENTS OF THE WEEK
Burges Salmon and Bellevue Law
LEGAL DIARY OF THE WEEK
Epstein – Maybe Stop Carping?
It’s been a pretty typical week at Paul, Weiss, Rifkind, Wharton & Garrison the top US law firm. Obviously lots of busy, purposeful activity but nothing out of the norm – at least as far as the firm’s website was concerned. The headline item on the firm’s news page was the announcement that, “Leading M&A lawyer Sean T. Wheeler will join the firm as a partner, co-chair of Global M&A and head of the firm’s new Houston office. Houston M&A lawyer Debbie P. Yee will also join the firm as a partner. Paul, Weiss is establishing a new Houston office focused on energy M&A and infrastructure clients, among others.”
So it was all about Houston. That’s alright then.
Or maybe not quite because, “Houston – we have a problem.”
Yes, Paul Weiss was caught up – apparently big time -in the Epstein issue. At the BBC newsfeed put it, “Brad Karp, the chairman of prestigious US law firm Paul Weiss, has stepped down after emails released in the latest tranche of Jeffrey Epstein files revealed the lawyer’s apparent communications with the late convicted sex offender.”
But as the BBC went to go on to comment, Karp remains at the firm and “Continues to focus his full-time attention to client service.” So it is not an instantaneous resigning or sacking matter.
As highlighted in the SHORT THOUGHT (above)maybe the hysteria about Epstein is getting out of control. Justice must be pursued and wrongs righted but a rush to judgment (especially by a mob of journalists) is not really in society’s interests long term. Perhaps the firm’s non-acknowledgement of the story which was being featured on both sides of the Atlantic was the right approach.
Apply Now for an Anthony Lester Fellowship to Support Practical Legal Change
Time is running short for applicants to this year’s Anthony Lester Fellowships which are designed to support lawyers or law students aiming to undertake practical fieldwork in human rights and the rule of law outside their home country. The goal is to enable enthusiastic people to research a topic early in their careers in order to facilitate practical change.
Under the auspices of the Bard Human Rights organisation in the USA two fellowships will be awarded, each one worth $25,000. for a project lasting at least three months. As the organisers put it, “The project is practical, manageable, and realistic and …At the end of the fellowship, fellows will be invited to give a presentation at Bard’s campus in New York’s Hudson Valley (their travel and accommodation costs will be paid).”
So, pretty attractive if you want to follow up a legal issue with a strong international dimension. But the emphasis is very much on the practical rather than academic. “The project should be in a country different from the applicant’s own, should be a different experience for them, and should come at a time in applicant’s career where it may make a real difference to career trajectory.”
The Fellowships are named in memory of Anthony Lester QC (Lord Lester of Herne Hill), the very distinguished UK human rights lawyer who was given the job by Amnesty International to visit on their behalf the American South during the civil rights movement. While there he realized as he put it, “The practice of law could be used to promote political and social change . . . Reinforced by my involvement with American constitutional law and civil rights in the Deep South, I decided to give it a try. It was life-changing.”
Applications must be received by the end of next week and full details are available from https://humanrights.bard.edu/lester-fellowship/
Shock and Horror As Whiplash Agreement is Reached
The big beasts in the insurance world have – most impressively – combined together to develop important new, voluntary provisions in cases of whiplash injuries which provide a pathway to assess the need for rehabilitation. Included in these provisions is that where treatment is required there will be a default agreement for six sessions without further reference to the paying party.
This has all come about due to the exceptional hard work by representatives from Forum of Insurance Lawyers (FOIL), the Association of Personal Injury Lawyers (APIL), the Motor Accident Solicitors Society (MASS) and the Association of British Insurers (ABI). Working together they were joined by the Association of Consumer Support Organisations (ACSO) to finalise this new text which the International Underwriting Association (IUA), as custodians of the Rehabilitation Code, has now included as an addendum.
The parties involved heralded the spirit of collaboration in reaching this agreement. Basically the different parts of the personal injury sector working just agreed to work together to deliver mutual benefits. Recognising that the existing system needed improvement, the initiative has resulted in a new process to deliver rehabilitation for those making claims through the Official Injury Claims portal.
“This initiative was brought about by concerns from all parts of the personal injury sector that the provision of rehab in lower-value claims was not working as well as it could,” they said. “After detailed discussion, we’re delighted to have agreed a new process which aims to address problem areas, to the benefit of injured people and paying parties. We hope the new wording will be widely adopted.”
At last, one might say with amazement, a bit of compromise and common sense has prevailed.
The Rehabilitation Code, with the new addendum is available on the IUA website: http://www.iua.co.uk/rehabilitation
Not A Dogmatic Merger
It will be interesting to see how this one works out.
PainSmith Solicitors, a specialist firm founded more than 24 years ago by respected property lawyer Marveen Smith, is going to be blended into the property litigation specialists at Clifton Ingram.
For those unfamiliar with them PainSmith are based in the lovely village of Medstead in Hampshire (not too far, it must be said, from the Legal Diary’s own parish) and is the only law firm to our knowledge which actually features the firm’s official dogs on its website. (FYI these are Dougal (“Dougie”), a very industrious Border Terrier puppy who spends his time looking for mischief along with the rather older Skye and Bonnie, also Border terriers.)
Anyway, time has come to start preparing to hand the leash on to someone else and the merger will ensure ‘continuity for PainSmith’s clients while embedding their specialist capability within a larger, full-service law firm’.
PainSmith was founded, so they say, on the belief that “landlord and tenant law demands technical expertise alongside clear, human communication” and certainly that human touch come thorugh in the way the Pain Smith team presents itself. Marveen Smith , the founding partner personally drafts key documents and runs a long-standing landlord and agent helpline that many clients describe as feeling more like “phoning a friend” than calling a law firm.
In a rather inspirational mission statement Smith declares, “We will give strong advice where necessary based upon our professional skill and judgment and will not shrink from telling unwelcome truths. We will counsel you against any course of action which in our opinion would be ill-advised for legal or commercial reasons. We will not encourage you to carry forward litigation in order to build our reputation if that is not in your best interests. Where possible we offer solutions to problems through lateral thinking.”
How refreshing!
CONTRIBUTED ARTICLE OF THE WEEK
PARALEGALS: THE PEOPLE WHO PROVIDE LEGAL RESILIENCE
by Christian Hill
Business disputes can vary widely—cancelled projects, disagreements over contractual terms, sudden changes in requirements, or unexpected employment issues—and they can threaten finances and reputations. The importance of legal resilience means businesses in many sectors include paralegals as part of their in-house teams. As both Group Managing Director of a security company and a practising paralegal, I understand that behind every contract signed, every dispute managed, and every client reassured, paralegal expertise provides the foundation that keeps things steady when pressures mount.
Consider these real-life examples, beginning with an international partnership dispute. A commercial partner claimed entitlement to a significant profit share under an agreement that had already been brought to an end. The sums involved were substantial, and the claim was asserted with confidence. Yet when the correspondence was aligned against the terms of the agreement and a record of representations preserved, the claim quickly unravelled.
Then there was an infrastructure dispute, where a claim was advanced under an agreement, but the sequence of correspondence and key dates simply did not support the position being put forward. Once the documents were reviewed and a clear chronology set out, the contradictions became obvious, and the strength of the claim diminished rapidly.
Another example is a corporate procurement dispute where a large organisation, a valuable client, attempted to impose new invoicing rules that had never formed part of the original agreement. Many businesses might have conceded under pressure to protect the relationship. But careful reference back to the contract provided the clarity needed to resist the change while preserving professionalism.
And an employment dispute showed how quickly small issues can escalate. An employee was faced with unexpected allegations and summoned at short notice, without clarity about the process or consideration of personal circumstances. With a paralegal ensuring proper procedure, safeguarding rights, and preserving a record, the situation was contained before it developed into something far more damaging for all concerned.
Each of these real-life examples shared one common thread: they could easily have destabilised the business. What prevented that outcome was not luck or senior intervention, but the consistent application of paralegal skills: precision with documents, careful chronology, insistence on clarity, and the discipline to preserve records.
Paralegal expertise provides stability when businesses face uncertainty. Often, the real value of a paralegal is not seen in the cases that reach a courtroom, but in those that never need to.
Christian Hill is a practising paralegal member of the National Association of Licensed Paralegals (NALP) and Managing Director of Intelligent Protection International Ltd.
LEGAL COMMENT OF THE WEEK
TOPIC: Rule 40 of the Olympic Charter and ambush advertising at the Winter Olympics
COMMENT BY: Joel Smith, Intellectual Property Partner, Simmons & Simmons
“Despite the stringent controls put in place to prevent non-sponsors associating their brands with the Winter Olympics, we wait to see if brands will be tempted to use ambush marketing in and around the venues or through social media, to leverage the power of global audiences.
There continues to be a marked tension between the major official sponsors of the Games and the individual sponsors of individual athletes, despite changes to Rule 40. This is also likely to come into conflict with the rise of certain athletes becoming prominent influencers and seeking to associate other brands or promoted products with the prestige of the Winter Olympics.
Advertisers are skating on thin ice, given the fines that can be levied.”
TOPIC: The UK’s Information Commissioner’s Office (ICO) formal investigations into X Internet Unlimited Company (XIUC) and X.AI LLC (X.AI) covering their processing of personal data in relation to the Grok artificial intelligence system and its potential to produce harmful sexualised image and video content.
COMMENT BY: Dr. Ilia Kolochenko, CEO at ImmuniWeb, a Fellow at the European Law Institute (ELI)
“The patience of regulators is not infinite: similar investigations are already pending even in California, let alone the EU. Moreover, some countries have already temporarily restricted or threatened to restrict access to X’s AI chatbot and more bans are probably coming very soon. Therefore, the decision of the UK’s ICO has been long-awaited.
“While the freedom of speech and expression are the core values of modern-day democracy, they are not unlimited, unconditional or absolute. Of note, existing laws and regulations in many countries allow victims of deepfakes to take legal actions against X or even file criminal complaints under certain circumstances. Therefore, the current probes by regulators are just the tip of the iceberg and have little in common with the growing dilemma of overregulation in Europe.
Hopefully X will take these alarming signals seriously and urgently implement the necessary security guardrails to prevent misuse and abuse of its AI technology. Otherwise, X may simply disappear as a company under the snowballing pressure from the authorities and a looming avalanche of individual lawsuits.”
TOPIC: Sir Brian Leveson’s Independent Review of the Criminal Courts, focusing on how the courts in England and Wales can operate efficiently
COMMENT BY: Simon Garrod, CILEX Director of Policy & Public Affairs
“Sir Brian Leveson’s report recognises the considerable systemic problems in the criminal justice system and the urgent need to remedy them. The court estate is in a state of disrepair and huge court backlogs persist – the government must take on board his recommendations on the funding needed to train more legal professionals and on sustained investment in the maintenance and repair of court buildings.
CILEX however, has serious concerns about the proposed increase in the use of remote hearings and the potential over-reliance on AI. Whilst it is easy to be seduced by artificial intelligence as a quick and efficient fix, the technology remains untested. When it comes to summaries of disclosure schedules, drafting witness statements, case file summaries and listing, there is a real danger that without proper safeguards we could see grave miscarriages of justice occur through evidential failures or failures to list important cases.
Remote hearings might free up court resources and appear more efficient but we run the risk of defendants in criminal proceedings not having adequate opportunity to ask questions of their legal advocates beforehand. This is valuable time when outcomes are explained to clients, changes of plea occur, and probation and bail decisions are discussed. Limiting this vital engagement could prove counterproductive.”
TOPIC: The Hickson Review and improving access to finance and entrepreneurship skills for university spin-outs
COMMENT BY: Nick Smee, Intellectual Property Partner, Browne Jacobson
“The UK’s higher education sector has for many years faced challenges with turning its world-class research activities into successful commercial ventures that can in turn drive revenue streams for the universities.
“The Hickson review’s recommendations appear to be sensible and, if implemented, could begin to turn the dial on spin-out activity across priority sectors outlined in the Industrial Strategy.
“Many of these are across similar themes included in another independent review published under the previous government in November 2023, however, so it’s vital that we now see tangible steps taken at government level to drive changes in access to funding.
“Universities and founders regularly tell us one of the biggest challenges that spin-outs face is gaining access to finance from external sources to not just get ventures off the ground, but to sustain them through the scale-up phase.
“The review identifies deeptech, in particular, as an area where small drip feed investment rounds harm spin-out prospects, with expansion of specialist deeptech capital access being a key recommendation.
“In countries like the US, unlocking pension funds has increased investment flows into domestic businesses. UKRI proposes to work with the National Wealth Fund and British Business Bank, which along with government pension reform will help to unlock pension capital for spin-outs.
“Just as the Post-16 Education and Skills White Paper says research funding will be realigned to the Industrial Strategy and encourages collaboration between universities to maximise these opportunities, a similar direction of travel looks likely for UKRI support of spin-outs, with shared technology transfer offices getting yet another mention.
“It’s therefore crucial for higher education institutions to consider how best to tap into the revised areas of support and access to investment, in order to build a successful spin-out ecosystem.”
TOPIC: The Loh-Gronager Pre-Nup Case
COMMENT BY: Tom Quinn, Partner, Family Team, Birketts LLP
“The facts of this case are astonishing and led the trial judge to conclude that (i) Mr Loh-Gronager’s behaviour both during the marriage and subsequent court proceedings was “deplorable”; and (ii) “he has throughout the marriage been preparing the ground for as lucrative a separation as he could contrive”. The parties accepted that they should both be held to the terms of the prenup and the debate was about the quantum of the payout to Mr Loh-Gronager, in circumstances where he had transferred c. £3.7M of his wife’s money (unbeknownst to her) into his control …some of which was used to fund an extra-marital relationship.
Mr Loh-Gronager’s conduct resulted in both a reduced award under the terms of the prenup and a further reduction directly consequent to his poor conduct (which the judge found inequitable to disregard). About £3.325M was reduced from his payout, though Mr Loh-Gronager still trousered about £2.3M and should have no complaints. Important to note that even where a prenup is upheld (and that isn’t always the case), it is still possible for really bad behaviour (or “conduct” as we term it) to impact on the ultimate result; fairness between the parties may demand this.”
TOPIC: The University of Sussex’s judicial review into OfS ‘freedom of speech’ decision in relation to Professor Kathleen Stock, who left the university after she was targeted by protests claiming her views on sex and gender were transphobic
COMMENT BY: Trish D’Souza, Legal Director, Education Team Browne Jacobson
“The University of Sussex has announced it is taking legal action against the OfS, launching a judicial review to contest the regulator’s decision-making process in imposing a £585,000 fine. The penalty was issued after Sussex adopted a transgender policy which, according to the OfS, failed to uphold freedom of speech and academic freedom, as well as failings in the university’s management and governance processes.
“The university argues that the OfS exceeded its powers – acting ultra vires – by scrutinising a policy it claims does not form part of its official governing documents and therefore should not have been considered when the fine was imposed. Sussex also contends the OfS acted irrationally or unreasonably by singling out its policy, which it considers is similar to those at other higher education institutions.
“For the case to proceed to a full hearing, Sussex must first demonstrate it has an arguable case. The court may consider whether a transgender policy can be regarded as part of a provider’s governing documents should be explored in a public hearing.
“Should Sussex succeed at the substantive hearing, the court could quash the OfS’s decision, forcing the regulator to reconsider the fine based on a narrower interpretation of what it constitutes governing documents.”
TOPIC: Men secretly filming women in public places
COMMENT BY: Mark Jones, criminal lawyer and online safety expert, Payne Hicks Beach
“Even though filming in public isn’t generally illegal, the law can still protect women where the filming is intrusive or sexualised. The criminal law can step in where the filming amounts to harassment, causes alarm or distress or involves voyeurism or indecent images.”
“What’s missing is a clear offence targeting covert, sexualised filming in public that isn’t voyeurism, upskirting or down-blousing. The law needs to better reflect how modern technology enables large-scale exploitation and monetisation of women and place clearer duties on platforms to prevent and remove this content quickly.”
“Civil liability is also engaged. Rights to a private life can apply in public places and once videos are shared online,harassment, data protection and misuse of privacy laws may be engaged, particularly where women are unaware they’ve been filmed.”
LEGAL SECTOR APPOINTMENTS OF THE WEEK
BURGES SALMON
James Maynard has been appointed a partner in the Corporate & M&A team at Burges Salmon based in London. Having previously served as Senior Legal Counsel at Sky as well as General Counsel at e-commerce platform Farfetch, the solar developer PVcase and gaming company Dream Games, Maynard has enjoyed more than 20 years’ experience advising fast-growth businesses, from scale-ups to multi-billion-pound public companies.
It is now anticipated that his experience in building legal functions from the ground up, scaling teams and delivering multi-jurisdictional M&A and corporate finance strategies for founders, investors and operators in the tech sector will be central to expanding Burges Salmon’s Corporate Technology offering.
“We’re delighted to welcome someone of James’ calibre to the firm,” said Nick Graves, partner and head of Corporate & M&A. “He brings a rare combination of board-level in-house experience and high-profile, international deal execution that aligns perfectly with our clients’ needs and our ambition to build a market-leading Corporate Technology team. This is a fantastic opportunity for our firm, with the tech sector presenting enormous potential for growth, product and service development.”
BELLEVUE LAW
Catherine McBride is joining Bellevue Law, a B Corp-certified boutique law firm, in its expanding Commercial Disputes team. McBride has previously held senior roles at Linklaters and Latham & Watkins where she was a partner in the Litigation & Trial department in both Hong Kong and London and a member of the firm’s White-Collar Defence & Investigations Practice and Financial Institutions Group. She also brings substantial in-house experience, having worked at EY, KPMG and Swiss Re, and having held senior roles including Head of Litigation for APAC at Deutsche Bank and interim General Counsel and Head of Litigation at Royal Bank of Canada. McBride was awarded “Best in Practice – Litigation” by the Women In Business Awards Asia.
Her expertise includes complex and cross-border litigation involving contract and shareholder disputes, mis-selling of financial instruments, misrepresentation, negligence and fraud, as well as conduct and employment-related matters. She also has significant experience advising on regulatory and law enforcement matters and managing domestic and cross-border internal investigations and risk management issues.
“I’m genuinely delighted to be joining Bellevue Law,” said McBride. “From my first conversations with the team, it was clear that the firm combines exceptional technical expertise with a thoughtful, collaborative approach that really resonates with me. I’m excited to contribute to the continued growth of the Commercial Disputes practice and to support clients as they navigate challenging complex issues.”
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