Edward Fennell’s LEGAL DIARY
Diary news plus insights, commentary and appointments from the legal world
17 April 2026
Editorial contact: fennell.edward@yahoo.com
SHORT THOUGHT FOR THE WEEK: Oh, Africa!
If the calamitous events in the Middle East have demonstrated anything it is how deeply interlinked we all are. How many laypeople would have guessed that British farmers were dependent on fertilizer coming via the Gulf?
Interestingly Gide, the French law firm with strong representation in London, has just provided another example of how to think outside our normal geographical assumptions. The firm has announced this week that it will inaugurate a regional office in Dakar, Senegal. “The African continent, [lies] at the heart of the Firm’s strategic challenges,” it declares.
Of course, for historical and imperial reasons France has always had a deep relationship with Africa and Gide now has offices in Casablanca, Algiers, and Tunis plus a strategic partnership with Bowmans in Southern Africa (and a local network across the Africa more widely).
But why should the French have so much of it to themselves? If London law firms are in need of a rethink about their global ambitions maybe now’s the time they should cast a look at Africa instead.
The LegalDiarist
In this edition
+ LEGAL DIARY OF THE WEEK
Clients’ Priorities: It’s An Age Thing
LSSA Keeps ESG Alive
Appealing to AI
Careful Whom You Talk To
+ CONTRIBUTED ARTICLE OF THE WEEK
The Algorithms’ ‘Day in Court’ by TOM DAVEY
+ LEGAL COMMENT OF THE WEEK
The Serious Fraud Office’s Business plan for the next year, new regulations to stop employers from using NDAs to cover up workplace harassment and discrimination, the prospect of a social media ban for under-16s, the Financial Conduct Authority’s consultation on guidance on the UK’s future ‘crypto’ regime, complex families.
LEGAL DIARY OF THE WEEK
Clients’ Priorities: It’s An Age Thing
Those of us of a certain age will recall the days when legal transactions dragged on for an age and there was neither hope nor expectation that lawyers would be ‘on call’ or prioritize the clients’ concerns. But within a generation times have changed and the demand now is that lawyers should be available, accessible and responsive. And, no surprise, this is being driven by the younger generation. According to a recent UK-wide survey sponsored by Katchr, clients aged 18–29 were, “Far more likely to view the ability to speak to someone from their legal team 24/7 and online account functions as core parts of the legal service experience, with 75% rating the former and 67% the latter as important.”
Conducted by the Law Firm Marketing Club (LFMC) the findings are said to highlight the growing importance for law firms to adapt their service models to remain relevant over the next decade.
Among respondents aged 18–29, expectations around digital tools are particularly pronounced, with 67% saying that online chat access is important.“This reflects a generation accustomed to instant, responsive communication through digital platforms, where quick answers and real-time interaction are the norm,” comments LFMC.
By contrast older clients have been cowed, one might say by years of experience, into being patient.
For those aged 60–75 ‘online chats’ are useful but the proportion describing them as ‘Important’ drops significantly to 38%. Similarly, demand for 24/7 access declines, with 58% of 60–75s rating it as important. “For these clients, clear updates and knowing who to contact matter more than continuous availability.”
According to Laura Lack, Community Manager for LFMR, what stands out from the research is that client expectations have not dramatically changed but they have become clearer. “Clients want to be kept informed, to receive timely responses, and to feel confident they understand what’s happening with their matter at every stage.
“The difference lies in how those expectations are delivered. Younger clients increasingly see digital access, online communication and round-the-clock availability as part of the standard experience, while older clients continue to prioritise direct contact and human reassurance.
“For law firms, the challenge is striking the right balance. It’s about being proactive in communication, using digital tools where they add value, and setting clear expectations around availability so clients feel supported without creating unsustainable demands on teams. Firms that get this right will not only meet expectations, but stand out in an increasingly competitive market.”
LSSA Keeps ESG Alive
Amidst the Trump Turbulence ‘Environmental, Social and Governance’ issues might seem to have been dumped into the back seat or left at the supermarket.
But, post-Trump, ESG matters are likely to resurface not least because it is part of a cultural and social realignment which has paused but has not gone away. An interesting manifestation of this comes from the Legal Software Suppliers Association (LSSA) which, notwithstanding possible scorn from across the Pond, has launched a new policy document which sets out a framework to ‘support responsible growth, ethical innovation and trusted digital transformation across the legal technology sector’.
The policy reflects the Association’s role in ‘promoting best practice, supporting members at different stages of ESG maturity and strengthening trust in legal systems through secure, transparent technology’.
So it’s a bold move but based on the firm conviction that LSSA members recognise that the legal technology sector has a responsibility not only to deliver innovation, but to do so in a way that is sustainable, inclusive and well governed.
Of course AI is now a key part of these developments.
“As AI becomes a bigger part of legal software, it is vital that the sector gets this right,” said . Kevin Horlock,CEO of the LSSA, “The opportunities are significant, but so are the risks if governance, transparency and accountability are lacking. This policy reflects our commitment to helping members support legal firms with technology that is innovative, ethical, secure and fit for the future.”
The policy also covers sustainable digital practices, access to justice, workforce development, diversity, inclusion and alignment with key UN Sustainable Development Goals.
To view or download the policy please visit: https://www.lssa.co.uk/environmental-social-and-govern
Appealing to AI
We are approaching a moment of, literally, truth in how AI contributes to the justice system.
Given the pressures that HM Courts & Tribunals Service is under it is no wonder that attention has shifted to how AI might help speed up the transcription of court reports. But given the crucial significance of these for subsequent scrutiny their reliability must be beyond reproach. So just how much can we trust them? (Anyone baffled by sub-titled transcriptions of news reports will recognise the problem – for example, ‘place & cheaps any won’).
But clearly big hopes being invested in it working.“I have long supported the Open Justice for All campaign in calling for better access to court transcripts, and the introduction of the AI court transcript pilot is a welcome step in that direction,” commented Claire Waxman OBE,the Victims’ Commissioner for England and Wales.
“Access to transcripts is vital for victims and families, helping them understand what happened in court, process proceedings in their own time and support their recovery, while also strengthening transparency and accountability across the justice system.”
However Katie Wheatley, Partner and Head of Crime, Fraud and Regulatory at Bindmans LLP, veered on the side of caution. “I would expect the government’s research to explore how accuracy can be verified and guaranteed, and the process for safeguarding recordings and transcripts of a particularly sensitive nature, such as recordings from “closed” proceedings that sometimes take place, from which parties or the public may be excluded,” she said.
But clearly something has to change in order to speed things up. “The costs of multiple transcripts can run into several thousands of pounds and the time taken can delay work such as advising about or preparing appeals on behalf of defendants,” Wheatley pointed out. Fingers crossed.
Careful Whom You Talk To
Utopia or dystopia? Thanks to AI we don’t really need friends any more. We can chat away to our best botmate – who has all our intimate secrets – and we don’t ever need to buy them a drink in the pub or send them flowers on their botday.
Translate that though into a lawyer’s office and we might have to be a bit more careful. A New York federal court ruling has meant that lawyers are now cautioning their clients against treating AI chatbots (like Anthropic’s Claude or OpenAI’s ChatGPT) as confidential advisors in legal matters. In short, conversations with them may not be protected by attorney-client privilege and could be used as evidence by prosecutors or opposing parties.
“If you don’t want your data or document to appear on the first page of a newspaper tomorrow morning, you would be better off not sharing it with mushrooming AI chatbots,” advises Dr. Kolochenko, CEO at ImmuniWeb, and Fellow at the European Law Institute (ELI).
From a legal perspective the important development is that, in some jurisdictions, especially American, AI-human interactions may be subject to e-discovery as a part of judicial process. Yes, case law case law is evolving and procedural rules have not yet caught up with the technology. “But the chances that the adverse party gets your most confidential admissions and confessions naively made to AI chatbot are pretty high,” says Kolochenko..
In reality it is perilous to confide too deeply in a bunch of wires. “Every discussion or data sharing with an AI chatbot – be it text, images of scanned documents – will quite likely first go through numerous technology vendors including cloud providers, cybersecurity vendors and other suppliers of AI companies,” reminds Kolochenko. “In view of the surging number and complexity of AI-specific attacks against LLMs, the cyber-defense stack at AI companies is continually growing, potentially sharing all your prompts with numerous third parties.”
So Chattie not your best friend after all? Well, you can still talk to them about the whether(as the transcript service would have it).
CONTRIBUTED ARTICLE OF THE WEEK
The Algorithms’ ‘Day in Court’ by TOM DAVEY
The detrimental effect social media is having on young people has been much debated – but rarely in court. To date, most litigation against social media companies has been commercial in nature. However, in March, a court in New Mexico ordered META to pay $375m in damages after a jury found they misled users on child safety. This has been a vital litmus test which could see a wave of litigation launched across the globe for the lax approach social media giants take to regulating their platforms.
So, are we going to see collective actions being launched in the UK over a lack of sufficient online protections? And will UK cases see plaintiffs winning damages?
Put simply, the UK legal system is a very different beast to its US counterpart, so success across the Atlantic does not guarantee success here.
Firstly, a collective action may be difficult to launch in the first place, especially when quantum will likely vary from claimant to claimant. In a case that relies on the impact of the unregulated social media landscape, each claimant may need to be assessed by an expert witness on the state of their mental health. The differences in these assessments could make a group action claim difficult.
What’s more, this expert witness testimony can be challenged by the defence. Given the deep pockets of social media giants, these challenges, perhaps regarding the extent of medical disclosure, are often a way to protract what are already costly affairs for claimants with less financial fire power.
Lack of finance can be a substantial hurdle – launching a group claim in the UK is prohibitively expensive, especially when fighting large companies like META. Combined with comparable low damages awarded to successful claimants, many feel that the effort of a lengthy court battle simply isn’t worth it.
Finally, UK courts are slowing the approval of group litigation orders. An omnibus claim approach is one solution favoured – like group actions, they ensure efficiency in case management, which helps keep costs down.
With all these hurdles to accessing justice, what can UK plaintiffs do to increase their chances of securing damages? Primarily, good lawyers and access to third-party litigation funding, which were vital in helping sub-postmasters secure justice against the Post Office. Courts must also ensure claimants are fairly treated when defendant legal teams inevitably throw the kitchen sink at them in the form of delays and challenges. Courts must therefore be tough on costs. Only then will our young people have a shot at receiving the justice they deserve.
Tom Davey is Co-Founder and Director of Factor Risk Management
LEGAL COMMENT OF THE WEEK
TOPIC: The publication by the Serious Fraud Office of its Business plan for the next year
COMMENT BY: Caroline Black, Consultant, Gherson Solicitors LLP
“The SFO has published its Business Plan for 2026/27 – the first under its new Interim Director Graham McNulty.
The short document echoes the same goals as its predecessor – ensuring a Confident, Strong, Dynamic and Pragmatic Organisation – and demonstrating the similar approach of both former police officers to the challenges at hand. As expected, given Mr McNulty’s prior role in leading on AI and technical innovation, the plan sets out a tech-heavy approach to the transformation of the organisation in the year ahead.
One notable omission from this year’s plan is the inclusion of a goal around whistleblower incentivisation reform, which was a particular priority for Mr Ephgrave. This omission marks a change in strategy and focus at the top of the SFO under its new Director.
Alongside these reforms is a commitment to “develop and maximise cryptoasset investigation capabilities” to deal with the significant money laundering threats posed by these digital currencies. Despite earlier commitments, since July 2025, there has only been one publicised SFO crypto wallet freezing order. Time will tell whether the SFO have actually lived up to their commitment and been more proactive in their investigations of crypto, including by way of obtaining further crypto wallet freezing orders and other relevant measures.”
COMMENT BY: Katie Wheatley, Partner and Head of Crime, Fraud and Regulatory, Bindmans LLP
“The SFO’s Business Plan for 2026-2027 signals that it is continuing to press ahead with the agenda set by former director Nick Ephgrave to modernise operations, harness new technology and improve international cooperation. Nick Ephgrave spoke last year at the IBA’s Anti-Corruption Conference in Paris about the creation of the Anti-Corruption Prosecutorial Taskforce working with France and Switzerland, so the SFO hosting the International Economic Crime Conference in May this year in London is further evidence of determination to improve international collaboration. The SFO’s intended move to new offices at Canary Wharf signals not only an intention to upgrade operational facilities but also an opportunity to stay in close touch with regulators such as the Financial Conduct Authority, which has offices in Canary Wharf.”
TOPIC: The prospect of a social media ban for under-16s
COMMENT BY: Dai Durbridge, Partner, Education Team, Browne Jacobson
“Banning social media for under-16s would be almost impossible to implement practically – instead, government should be ramping up education for children on how they interact with online platforms.
“While it’s correct to engage with other countries’ experiences in this field, we can also learn from the many historic examples of bans being imposed on the general public across the world – from popular literature to alcohol – to only grow in popularity as a result.
“Most recently, there is plenty of evidence illustrating how easy it has been for people to circumvent websites blocked by the Online Safety Act using virtual private networks (VPNs) since the legislation was implemented in July.
“The horse has already bolted on social media use among young people and there are benefits alongside the well-publicised downsides. For example, social media can provide peer support – especially for marginalised or isolated teenagers – creative outlets, and access to educational content and communities.
“A blanket ban would remove both beneficial and harmful uses of social media. From a digital literacy perspective, delayed exposure to these platforms can make later use riskier rather than safer.
“Practically speaking, there would also be enforcement challenges such as age verification without invasive data collection, and children potentially bypassing bans using fake images, VPNs and older friends’ accounts, similar to what we’ve seen with the Online Safety Act.
“However, we know there are numerous safeguarding risks associated with exposure to many social media websites and apps that can’t be ignored. This is why educating pupils about how to behave correctly and spot signs of danger on these platforms is the best way forward.”
TOPIC:The Financial Conduct Authority’s consultation on guidance on the UK’s future ‘crypto’ regime
COMMENT BY: Thomas Cattee, white-collar crime partner, Gherson Solicitors LLP
“The introduction in the UK of a crypto regulatory regime is significantly lagging behind Europe, which is more advanced in introducing a fully enforced framework.
However, another slow step has been taken in the long (seemingly endless) journey to a UK crypto regulatory regime: in advance of the FCA introducing from October 2027 new regulated activities for cryptoassets into their regulatory perimeter, the FCA is consulting on new guidance to help firms understand how they might be affected.
The guidance – aimed at various recipients including cryptoasset firms and law firms advising on crypto – seeks feedback on various regulated cryptoasset activities, including operating trading platforms and dealing and arranging deals in qualifying cryptoassets.
Relevant recipients would do well to engage and take heed and more broadly the UK will (eventually) not get too far behind Europe in being seen as a place for crypto firms to do business.”
TOPIC: The Government’s announcement of a consultation on new regulations to stop employers from using NDAs to cover up workplace harassment and discrimination
COMMENT BY: Jo Mackie, employment partner, Michelmores
“This has been promised for some time, and if passed will be a welcome addition to the rules binding settlement agreements. It stems from a number of incidents when employers hushed up allegations of sexual misconduct and harassment against senior male staff by (usually) junior female employees. Crispin Odey was one such alleged senior male employer that you may have read about.
Forbidding non-disclosure agreements to hide harassment, sexual or criminal acts is to be welcomed, as it will better enable good employers to keep the working environment safe, and give a strong message to perpetrators that they cannot hide.”
COMMENT BY: David Greenhalgh, Partner, Excello Law
“Women should be allowed to get justice on their own terms, and if that means they are happy to take a payment under the terms of a settlement agreement with an NDA, that is their choice.
“It is important that reforms prevent the misuse of NDAs to pressure or silence victims. However, care must also be taken to preserve the ability of individuals to make informed decisions about how they resolve their claims.
“Women should not be prevented from being able to get compensation for the mistreatment they have suffered nor should they be forced into the front line of womens’ rights in the workplace unless they want to. Not every victim wishes to pursue litigation or become a public voice for workplace reform.”
COMMENT BY: Georgina Calvert-Lee, barrister specializing in employment law, equality and discrimination, Bellevue Law
“The Employment Rights Act 2025 includes a provision rendering void any confidentiality or non-disclosure clauses (“NDAs”) in agreements between an employer and a worker which purports to stop the worker disclosing information about harassment or discrimination in their workplace or the employer’s response to it. The provision is currently expected to come into force in October 2026.
“In the meantime, the government has today opened a consultation on whether this prohibition should also apply to other individuals who are not “workers”, for example, volunteers or job applicants. Importantly, it also asks how this provision will be enforced in practice, including whether any NDAs should be permitted as an exception to the general prohibition.
“This latter question has to be approached with care. The government has suggested that NDAs should be permitted where requested by the worker after they have received independent legal advice, paid for by the employer. This risks creating an exception that engulfs the rule. Given the obvious imbalance of power between an employer and a worker, there would be little to stop an employer pressuring a worker to “request” an NDA, after taking advice from the lawyer the employer has paid for (and sometimes found).
“We see a similar subversion of the protection that employees take independent legal advice before signing a settlement agreement. In practice, employers offer such a small contribution to their worker’s legal fees that they are forced to make do with cursory advice that provides little more than a certificate to confirm they have secured a lawyer’s sign-off. Many cannot afford to pay the legal fees required to obtain proper advice on their own circumstances unless they are lucky enough to be served by a lawyer willing to waive over 75% of their usual fees.”
COMMENT BY: James Townsend, Partner, Head of Employment, Payne Hicks Beach
“If Parliament is serious about levelling the playing field, it should consider introducing a presumption of anonymity for both claimants and respondents (unless they choose to waive that right) when dealing with allegations of sexual harassment or racism in the workplace before an Employment Tribunal, rather than continuing the practice of publishing Judgments online.
“Such an approach would no doubt encourage claimants to come forward with greater confidence and end the naming of innocent parties.“
TOPIC: The latest figures from the Office of National Statistics showing the emergence of more complex family set-ups
COMMENT BY: Nick Gova, Head of Family, Spector Constant & Williams
“Marriage may still dominate on paper, but the steady growth of cohabitation means more families are operating without the legal safety net they often assume they have.
“The increase in lone parents living with adult children reflects economic pressure, but legally it creates a far more complex household picture when relationships break down or estates are divided
“The continued rise in lone‑father households challenges outdated assumptions around caregiving and reinforces the need for child‑focused outcomes rather than gender‑led expectations.
“What the ONS data really shows is that modern families are more fluid, multi‑generational and legally exposed, while the law still largely assumes much tidier outcomes.”
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