Edward Fennell’s LEGAL DIARY

Diary news plus insights, commentary and appointments from the legal world

22 May 2026

Editorial contact: fennell.edward@yahoo.com

SHORT THOUGHT FOR THE WEEK: Facing Charges?

As we go into a steaming Bank Holiday the hot issues hanging over the legal world are the possibilities of charges being pursued against Andrew (the man formerly known as Prince) and in connection with the tragedy of the Grenfell fire catastrophe.

The latter could include corporate gross negligence manslaughter, fraud, health and safety breaches and misconduct in public office. Strikingly one of the lawyers to comment about developments is Ross Wilson, currently a partner at Spencer West LLP but previously with another firm which had worked on the Grenfell follow-up. Arising from this experience and against a background of Labour difficulties in the recent local elections Wilson observes that, “I think the Remediation Bill [so that all unsafe buildings should be remediated by 2029 and 2031] is conveniently timed to find political favour rather than a genuine intention to resolve the issue.”

Stingingly Wilson adds, “I would say a policy (which could be summarised as “make buildings safe”) should NOT (1) take circa 8 years to implement and (2) suggest solutions that are unlikely to produce real world results (i.e. all buildings are made safe by the suggested hard deadlines).”

Whether Grenfell (like other national tragedies this century) will ever be brought to a just conclusion with a positive outcome or merely meander on inconsequentially for years remains to be seen. As so often one is left wondering whether ‘thoroughness’ by the authorities offers an escape route for the culpable. Nonetheless, as Wilson comments, “Those that appear to have been shortlisted by New Scotland Yard are sure to be watching with bated breath.”

Enjoy a lovely hot Bank Holiday weekend.

The LegalDiarist

In this edition

+ LEGAL DIARY OF THE WEEK

A Regular Bunch Of …

Trust Nobody?

LODS Tells It Like It Is

Boosting Cyber Law in Africa

+ FIRM REPORT on Boodle Hatfield

+ LEGAL COMMENT OF THE WEEK

on working in heat, possible new wealth tax, unfair dismissal rules, Southampton FC’s shame, wrongful retention of children abroad and fast-tracking energy projects

+ APPOINTMENTS OF THE WEEK

at Burgess Mee and Gibson Dunn

LEGAL DIARY OF THE WEEK

A Regular Bunch Of …

Things have been uncomfortable at the SRA (Solicitors Regulation Authority) for some time but have come to a head this week with the announcement that it is going to have to pay 65% of Dentons’ costs incurred in the High Court and Court of Appeal proceedings in the AML case which linked to allegations of money laundering. The indications are that those costs could amount to £500K with a payment of £200,000 on account.

One presumes that top brass at the SRA knew the way things were going. A month ago Sarah Rapson, Chief Executive of the SRA, commented, ‘I have been clear that the organisation must change if we are to become the regulator that the public and the sector deserves. We have a lot of work ahead of us to become a modern, proportionate regulator that is both trusted and effective.”

Setting up a new ‘simplified leadership structure and culture of empowerment’will be crucial to achieving the scale of transformation needed, Rapson said. “The changes we are making will provide greater capacity, renewed focus and more clarity, which in turn will improve the speed and quality of decision making across the organisation,” was the claim.

No great surprise that this carries with it the imposition of significantly higher fees. Responding to the latest development Colin Passmore, Chair and Patrick McCann, CEO of the City of London Law Society commented,

“We recognise that the SRA faces real and growing pressures, and we are supportive of Sarah Rapson’s efforts to refocus the regulator and put its operations on a stronger footing since taking over as CEO. Reform is overdue and her diagnosis of the challenges is, in many respects, the right one. That said, an increase in fees of this scale – 29% in a single year, with further rises signalled beyond 2026/27 – sets a high bar. The profession is being asked to fund the cost of fixing problems it did not create.”

Clearly this story might have some way to run.

Trust Nobody?

It’s going to take time but the movement is starting to combat AI abuse and error. Already lawyers are being caught out by their use of AI coming up with inaccuracies and untruths with the consequent damage to reputations and possible professional consequences.

But US outfit BrentWorks Inc reckons that it has come up with a verification tool, cunningly called CiteSentinel, which can cut the clangers. Of course many (most?) senior lawyers have assiduously avoided the AI trap – but can they be certain that their junior colleagues are doing the same?

As the company’s PR announcement puts it, “Legal tech startup BrentWorks Inc. launched CiteSentinel, among the first dedicated platforms built specifically to detect and prevent AI hallucinations in legal citations. The tool scans legal documents and flags case law, statutes, and legal
authorities that may be fabricated, misstated, or otherwise erroneous,
before they reach a judge.”

So a key part of the sales pitch for CiteSentinel is that it is going to protect partners from the sins of their team.“Many attorneys who do not personally use AI to draft documents are discovering they have a problem anyway,” commented Brent Britton, co-founder of Brent Britton. ”Opposing counsel may have used AI. Co-counsel may have. Contract attorneys and paralegals almost certainly have access to it and may be using it without disclosing that fact. When a brief containing fabricate citations reaches the court, the question of who drafted it quickly becomes secondary to the question of whose name is on it.”

All too true. “Like a reality check for legal briefs, the tool flags citations that maybe hallucinated, misstated, or inaccurately referenced, allowing lawyers to correct errors before courts, clients, or competitors discover them first.”

So that’s alright then. Question is, of course, who checks the checkers?

LODS Tells It Like It Is

“Legal is no longer a support function operating at the edge of the business,” declares the annual survey from Lawyers on Demand portentously. “It is becoming a strategic part of the engine that drives it, one where technology, data, governance, workflows, and people operate as a coordinated whole. But that shift is exposing a fundamental tension: the function’s remit has expanded, leadership expectations have accelerated, and the architecture underneath was built for a different era, defined by linear workflows, specialist silos, and reactive advisory structures.”

In short. almost everything is being done wrong. However well they worked (in fact, mostly brilliantly) a decade ago things have moved on. And, by heavens, how much have things have moved on! Or, as the opening sentence to the LOD report comments, “Our 2026 global survey report reveals a profession attempting to evolve its operating engine while continuing to run at full speed.”

Among a myriad of developments the following two observations stand out in the LOD report.

• Workload is still the defining pressure for in-house teams (56%), but it now sits just above growing responsibility for technology decisions (54%). Coupled with teams’ growing strategic role, the findings suggest that they are under more pressure than ever before.
• AI and legal technology adoption is widespread but shallow and disjointed. Intelligent tools are being layered onto infrastructures that were not designed for integration at scale, resulting in 46% of in-house respondents reporting operating within fragmented systems, 48% relying on manual workarounds and 34% experiencing duplicated data across multiple platforms. These findings suggest limitations on visibility and efficiency, while increasing the risk of inconsistency.

So, quite a lot to sort out and well worth a read at file:///C:/Users/Owner/Downloads/LOD_Global_Survey_Report_2026.pdf

Boosting Cyber Law in Africa

So far 37 countries have published their national positions on the application of international law in cyberspace, but just one of them is African – Kenya. That is why a major new study is being undertaken with a view to empowering African nations to harness international law for its cyber benefit.

‘Advancing the Application of International Law in the Cyber Context in Africa’, is led by Dr Talita Dias from the University of Exeter, working in close collaboration with experts from the Deutsche Gesellschaft für Internationale Zusammenarbeit (GIZ) and in partnership with the African Union.

“Digital technologies are reshaping economies, governance, and security across the globe,” said Dr. Dias. “For Africa, this transformation presents immense opportunities, from expanding access to services to accelerating innovation and growth. Yet these same technologies are increasingly exploited by people to conduct harmful cyber operations, ranging from ransomware attacks and distributed denial-of-service incidents to electoral interference and disinformation campaigns, which increasingly challenge national stability, public trust, and sovereignty.”

 In 2024, the African Union published the landmark ‘Common African Position on the Application of International Law to the Use of Information and Communications Technologies in Cyberspace’. This marked a significant advance for the continent and underpinned Africa’s role as an active contributor to the evolving legal discussion on cyberspace. Nonetheless many African governments face significant capacity constraints that limit their ability to engage deeply with the legal dimensions of cybersecurity, even as cyber threats to their rapidly expanding digital economies continue to intensify.

 “The idea is to create space for informed reflection, dialogue, and collaboration, supporting each state in developing positions that reflect its own legal perspectives and policy priorities,” explained Professor Kubo Mačák of the University of Exeter. Sounds as if it could be a seminal move for the continent.

FIRM REPORT: Boodle Hatfield 

Boodle Hatfield, the private wealth law firm, reports a second successive year of double-digit growth. With revenue expected to hit £49.5m this represents an almost15% increase on last year’s figures.

“It is rewarding to see our strategic focus on private capital and key practice areas deliver such strong financial performance,” commented Andrea Zavos, Senior Partner. “Delivering double digit growth against a turbulent macroeconomic backdrop is testament to our talented and versatile team and a reflection of the whole firm’s dedication to excellent client service delivery.”

Boodle Hatfield LLP now has 49 partners and a history reaching back 300 years. 

LEGAL COMMENT OF THE WEEK

TOPIC: Rules over working in a hot environment

COMMENT BY: Chloe Grant, Associate specialising in UK employment law, Bellevue Law

“At what point is it simply too hot to work? UK law doesn’t set a maximum workplace temperature, but employers must provide a working environment that’s safe and without risk to health. Very high temperatures can affect people’s ability to work safely and effectively, and employers need to be ready to respond when the mercury rises.

“The most effective responses are often those grounded in common sense. Practical steps like adjusting start and finish times, relaxing dress codes, investing in air conditioning facilities and/or enabling remote working where possible may help to ease the immediate impact. Just as important is giving managers sufficient discretion to respond sensibly to local conditions and individual circumstances. And an ice cream for the team is never a bad thing for morale!

“Employers can’t help the weather, of course, and employees are likely to understand operational constraints; but they will also notice when businesses are slow to respond or overly rigid. Even small, proportionate adjustments can go a long way in maintaining engagement and signalling that wellbeing is being taken seriously.

“This is also a glimpse of what is to come. Periods of extreme heat are becoming part of the UK’s working reality rather than an occasional disruption. Employers who continue to treat heatwaves as exceptional may find themselves repeatedly on the back foot, while those who build flexibility into their approach should be better placed to support their people and sustain performance.”

TOPIC: Talk of a new wealth tax as part of the leadership debate in the Labour party

COMMENT BY: Charlotte Sallabank, Tax Partner, Katten Muchin Rosenman LLP

“Wes Streeting’s proposal [for a wealth tax] appears to be to add a taxpayer’s income and capital gains from disposals during that tax year together to arrive at the relevant CGT band, rather than determining the CGT band by reference to capital gains alone, so the distinction between what is a capital gain and an income gain would become less relevant.

 Streeting is clearly branding this as a ‘wealth tax’ to help his leadership bid, appealing to the more left of centre Labour MPs and party members, to gain leadership votes. But his proposal is not in the nature of a typical wealth tax which is often an annual dry tax charge on a taxpayer’s assets; Wes Streeting’s proposal would result in a tax charge on (for the most part) realised gains, but at income tax rates. And if Wes Streeting’s proposed changes are implemented, the justification for a lower effective income tax rate on carried interest to appease fund managers will surely be lost.”

 TOPIC: Employers’ reaction to proposed new Unfair Dismissal Rules

COMMENT BY: Charlie Barnes, Head of Employment Legal Services, RSM UK

“The changes to unfair dismissal rules coming in January are designed to protect workers’ rights. However our research suggests there may be unintended consequences that could lead to increased unemployment. It seems many employers will recruit fewer permanent employees, or use more off-payroll workers, as a result of this change. In an economic climate where the unemployment rate is already showing a worrying rise – partly due to increasing tax and labour costs for employers – the results are concerning.”

The new rules are also likely to put further pressure on the employment tribunal service, which is already facing a 5-year backlog.RSM’s research found that a quarter of employers felt an increase in tribunal claims was ‘very likely’ while 40% think it is ‘somewhat likely’. Recent data from the Courts and Tribunals Judiciary* highlighted there are now 58,000 outstanding tribunal claims, up from 33,000 in Q4 2023/24, representing a 76% rise.

“The employment tribunal service is already struggling under a heavy caseload, and the change in unfair dismissal rules, together with a rise in AI-generated claims, is pushing it to breaking point. With cases taking up to five years to be heard, it’s impossible to see how the current system can provide swift access to justice, for either employee or employer, without additional resource or a complete overhaul.”

TOPIC: The Southampton FC ‘spying’ scandal

COMMENT BY: Jamie Hurworth, Dispute Resolution lawyer, Payne Hicks Beach,

“This is a disaster for everyone involved with the club and the significance of the outcome cannot be overstated.  The club no doubt feel aggrieved given the fine imposed on Leeds for a similar offence in 2019, but the rules have been bolstered since then. 

“They also perhaps would have expected greater leniency having pleaded guilty to the charges.  The prospect of missing out on promotion could cost hundreds of millions. 

“There will also be long-lasting damage to relationships with players who will potentially be deprived of the chance to earn promotion-related bonuses and playing in a career-defining game. 

“Crucially, the relationship with fans will also be tarnished and it is their hard-earned money and time spent supporting the club throughout the season has potentially been thrown away by the club’s actions.“

TOPIC: The introduction of new legislation criminalising the wrongful retention of children abroad

COMMENT BY: Kim Lehal, Partner, RWK Goodman

“As a family lawyer specialising in international child abduction, I often advise parents whose children have failed to return home after an agreed holiday abroad with the other parent. Telling those parents that such wrongful retention was not a criminal offence in England and Wales has been one of the hardest parts of my job.

The new legislation is undoubtedly welcome and long overdue. Once it is in force, it will  finally bring the criminal law closer into line with the reality faced by many families and with the approach already recognised under the Hague Convention. It will be interesting to see whether the change in the law will act as a deterrent, preventing wrongful retentions or whether it will make obtaining return orders more difficult.

“However,  the legislation will not apply retrospectively once the new provision comes into force. For parents whose children were retained abroad before the law comes into force , there remains no criminal recourse.”

TOPIC: Major energy projects set to be fast-tracked

COMMENT BY: Nimoy Kher, Managing Associate, Rnergy team, Sharpe Pritchard

“This is a welcome and pragmatic evolution of judicial review reform. Speaking from experience, well-consented infrastructure projects can be exposed to legal challenges that add months of delay, increase costs and undermine investor confidence, without always materially improving the quality of decision-making.

“The reforms already introduced by the Government sought to rebalance the system towards genuine legal scrutiny rather than tactical obstruction. These proposed next steps go further by recognising that, for a narrow category of nationally critical energy projects, certainty is itself a public good. Parliamentary authorisation and a structured challenge window could help surface legitimate issues earlier, protect democratic accountability and give developers and funders greater confidence to commit capital once consent is granted.

“But the detail will matter, particularly in ensuring that communities still have a meaningful opportunity to raise legitimate concerns.”

LEGAL SECTOR APPOINTMENTS OF THE WEEK

BURGES MEE

Susie Barter (above) has joined Burgess Mee, the family law firm, as a partner.

Previously with Child & Child, where she was a partner and head of the family law tea, Mee than 30 years’ experience in family law. She specialises in work with high- and ultra-high-net-worth individuals (such as landowners, celebrity sports people and entrepreneurs) both UK and overseas in complex financial remedy cases – including cross-border issues and complex asset structures – and in children matters. She is a trained mediator and collaborative lawyer and advises families on wealth protection structures including pre- and post-nuptial agreements and co-habitation agreements.

Trained originally at Stephenson Harwood. she spent two years as judicial assistant in the Court of Appeal and family lawyer to Lady Butler-Sloss in the High Court Family Division. She had also worked at Manches, Farrer & Co. and Speechly Bircham as well as running her own family law practice, Percival Rose & Co.

 “Burgess Mee is one of the most innovative, client-focused family law firms in the country,” said Barter. “I’m really excited to be joining the team and contributing to its continued success.”

GIBSON DUNN

Chris Slack has joined the London office of Gibson Dunn as a partner in its Real Estate Practice Group, where he will work closely with the Investment Funds Practice Group. The firm has seen significant growth recently in this field.

Slack’s career-to-date has focused on real estate capital raising, including the structuring, formation, and operation of global and pan-regional funds, co-investment structures, programmatic and strategic joint ventures, separately managed accounts, and a wide range of primary and secondary transactions (including GP-led secondaries transactions) and liquidity solutions involving real estate assets.

“This is the perfect time to be joining Gibson Dunn,” said Slack. “The global platform, the ambition of the real estate and investment funds practices, and the opportunity to build on the firm’s marquee real estate capability in London make this move an exciting prospect. Clients in the real estate sector are increasingly seeking advice and support on their highly structured and complex real estate capital raising transactions – spanning funds, co-investments, joint ventures, secondaries, and other liquidity solutions – Gibson Dunn’s cross-practice and cross-border approach is perfectly positioned to meet those needs.”

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