EDWARD FENNELL’S LEGAL DIARY
Diary news plus insights, commentary and appointments from the legal world
19 June 2026
Editorial contact: fennell.edward@yahoo.com
SHORT THOUGHT FOR THE WEEK
Tech with Schtick?
Hotfoot from the amazingly large and busy fun fest of legal technology LEGALTECHTALK which concluded yesterday afternoon at the InterContinental London – The O2, the Legal Diarist was privileged to attend a lively annual reception at one of London’s best know legal PR outfits. And although ‘legal London’ might be coming under pressure there was no shortage of vibrant activity and ambition. Suggestions that the Magic Circle is no longer what it was might be true – but maybe the world is just moving on. Many of the speakers at LEGALTECHTALK were trans-continental in the same way that the terms ‘American’ or ‘British’ no longer have their same exclusive relevance in law firms. Legal PR and litigation support is also going trans-Atlantic.
So while legal tech consultancies with names such as Iron Carrot, Lawstronaut and Haystacked would not have been given the time of day by Senior Partners a decade or so ago, now they represent the future. Technology is changing almost everything but at core the human contact is still irreplaceable. Investing in the one while staying firm with the other is now the challenge.
The LegalDiarist
p.s. to mark the significance of Legal Tech our Appointments section this week is dedicated to an engineer-turned-lawyer-turned corporate boss, Jason Barnwell the new Chief Product Officer at AGILOFT
In this edition
+ LEGAL DIARY OF THE WEEK
How Big is Your Budget? The Marketeers Come Clean
Pupils in London benefit from CLLS Support
OBE for Professor Moorhead – Scourge of the Post Office
JCT Appoints Wood to Construction Role
+ CONTRIBUTED ARTICLE OF THE WEEK
Fashionably Challenged by by Liz Brownsell
+ LEGAL COMMENT OF THE WEEK
on social media ban for kids, SLAPPs, the Bains case, Ashley Cain, coercive control and Data Protection complaints.
+ APPOINTMENT OF THE WEEK
at AGILOFT
LEGAL DIARY OF THE WEEK
How Big is Your Budget? The Marketeers Come Clean
Will marketing budgets in law firms keep rising? And will the marketing function be given a greater hand in firm strategy?
These are the two big questions at the heart of the Law Firm Marketing Club’s (LFMC) annual Professional Services Marketing Survey for 2026 in whoch 130 firms are expected to take part.
Last year’s results revealed that the average firm invested 3.1% of turnover in marketing and business development, excluding salaries. That represented an increase from a low of 2.6% in 2022 and maybe suggested that confidence had returned to the market. However the sway that marketeers had over top management was fairly weak with just 18% of firms reporting that their marketing and business development team ‘drives the strategic process’. In more than two thirds of responding firms that was not the case.
“The recovery in marketing budgets is encouraging, and it suggests firms once again see marketing and business development as central to growth rather than a cost to trim,” observed Laura Lack, Community Manager of the Law Firm Marketing Club. “The more telling story, though, is influence. Firms are clearly willing to invest, yet marketing still rarely leads the strategic conversation, and that gap between spend and influence is one of the clearest themes to come out of the research.“Tracking how that picture changes is exactly why we run this survey each year. With the 2026 edition now open, we will begin to see whether marketing’s role in law firms is genuinely shifting, and we would encourage firms of every size to take part and add to the picture.”
The 2026 survey, sponsored by SurSum, is open now. For more go to https://www.lawfirmmarketingclub.com
Pupils in London benefit from CLLS Support
Schools serving disadvantaged communities are likely to get a big boost from the City of London Law Society (CLLS) which has announced that at least 15 new workshops will be delivered in fifteen primary and junior schools within 15 miles of the City of London under its ‘ALL RISE’ initiative.
Designed to raise awareness of and aspiration for a legal career among pupils, particularly those from disadvantaged backgrounds, at an early age ALL RISE is benefiting from £7.5Kfunding from the CLLS for thjis new initiative..
“I am incredibly grateful to the City of London Law Society for its support,” said James Stewart, a former solicitor but now a teacher and founder of All Rise. “With this, we will be able to reach many more schools in communities where opportunities for enrichment may be limited. As a result, more young people will gain a greater understanding of the legal and justice systems and how it shapes their lives. Teachers and pupils repeatedly tell us that these workshops are transformative, helping students to see the law as a positive force in society and to see that a career in law is within their reach.”
The All Rise workshops are designed to help pupils understand their rights, their responsibilities, and the role that the law plays in protecting their voices and choices. The sessions are fully interactive and include a mock ‘crown court’ trial, teaching on cyberbullying, and case studies inspired by famous moments in history and fiction. All Rise has reached over 6,500 students to date and was described by the former President of the Law Society of England and Wales Dr. I. Stephanie Boyce as “so important to ensuring our children are able to better understand the law and how it affects them.”
OBE for Professor Moorhead – Scourge of the Post Office
When the full history of the Post Office scandal comes to be written there will be a number of personalities who emerge as brave and even heroic in taking on the formidable corporate bureaucracy of the organisation once regarded as a pillar of British life. Amongst those already recognised is Professor Richard Moorhead,(left) from the University of Exeter whose early submissions to the Post Office Horizon IT Inquiry helped to ensure the role of lawyers in miscarriages of justice would be properly considered. Having been described as ‘Powerful’, by Chair Sir Wyn Williams (when accepting a recommendation to lift legal professional privilege) Professor Moorhead has now been awarded OBE in the King’s Birthday Honours for his pains.
“Whilst delighted and not a little proud, it is important to say that a good dollop of luck and the support of those around me is what makes for moments like these said Moorhead. “It is particularly sobering that my most important contributions have been built on the Post Office Scandal. It has been a galvanising story of human misery and I owe a profound debt to the decency of the victims who are role-models for us all. Working on their experiences has enriched my life immeasurably. Their treatment holds up a mirror to an all-too-common corporate, professional, and legal culture that can ruin lives.”
Professor Moorhead was appointed to the Horizon Compensation Advisory Board in 2023, with Lord Beamish and Lord Arbuthnot, chaired by Professor Chris Hodges. The board, supported by Post Office Project research, have argued for better compensation, a scheme for family members, and unparalleled action to quash criminal convictions en masse.
JCT Appoints Wood to Construction Role
Anna Wood, a Partner and Head of Construction at Michelmores has been appointed Chair of the Drafting Sub-Committee by the Joint Contracts Tribunal (JCT). As Chair she will now lead the group responsible for overseeing the development and updating of JCT’s suite of standard form construction contracts. These are widely used across the UK construction industry and it is estimated that they cover £90-£100 billion worth of construction work in the UK each year.
“I am delighted to take on the role of Chair of the JCT Drafting Sub-Committee at a time when the construction industry continues to navigate significant legal, commercial and regulatory change,” said Wood. “ The JCT contracts play a central role in supporting successful project delivery, and I look forward to working with the Sub-Committee to ensure that all contracts across the suite remain clear, relevant and fit for purpose.”
Andrew Baines, Head of Michelmores’ Specialist Real Estate team, commented,“Anna’s appointment to this important role is a testament to her expertise and leadership within the construction sector. We are proud to see her contributing directly to the development of the JCT contracts, which underpin so many construction projects across the UK.”
CONTRIBUTED ARTICLE OF THE WEEK
FASIONABLY CHALLENGED
Controversy is surroundinging NAOMI CAMPBELL and her role in Fashion for Relief following her five-year ban on running a charity – a ban she is now trying to have overturned at tribunal
by Liz Brownsell
The tribunal appeal [by Campbell] brings into sharp focus a point that is often misunderstood: even if Naomi Campbell’s criticisms of others involved in the charity’s operations are substantiated, that does not relieve her of legal responsibility as a trustee. Charity law imposes personal duties on trustees to oversee and engage in the administration of the charity. A failure to be involved, even if acting in good faith or relying on others, can itself amount to misconduct or mismanagement. It has been reported that Campbell has accepted she was not involved in day-to-day operations and acted more as a figurehead. That is precisely the risk – trustees cannot step back from governance and later seek to attribute blame elsewhere.
The legal test for disqualification is also narrower than many assume. The Charity Commission does not need to prove dishonesty; it is sufficient to show serious misconduct or mismanagement in the administration of a charity. The question is whether the individual is unfit to act as a trustee, having regard to past conduct. That assessment is protective, not punitive. In this case, the focus was on governance failings, financial controls and the application of charitable funds, rather than fraud. Trustee disqualification is about standards, not just wrongdoing – you can be removed for falling materially short of what the law expects, even without dishonesty.
One of the more interesting undercurrents in this case is the question of regulatory hindsight. If, as appears to be the case, the charity’s business model was broadly understood at the point of registration, there is a legitimate question as to how comfortably that model ever sat with the legal requirements for charitable status. That will not, in itself, undo the disqualification – which turns on governance and trustee conduct – but it does raise a broader point about whether the line between philanthropy and charitable activity was ever clearly drawn here.
Charity law requires that an organisation’s activities directly advance its charitable purposes, with only limited scope for non-charitable trading. A structure built primarily around high-cost fundraising events, where only a relatively small proportion of income is applied for charitable purposes, raises difficult questions about whether that legal test is met. Raising money for good causes is not, in itself, enough – the law requires a genuinely charitable activity, not just a fundraising vehicle.
There is also a wider lesson for founders and high-profile philanthropists. The Commission’s inquiry identified significant governance and financial management concerns, including the proportion of funds reaching beneficiaries and issues around trustee expenses. Responsibility cannot be delegated away. If you lend your name to a charity and act as a trustee, you remain legally accountable – being a figurehead is not a defence.”
Liz Brownsell is Partner and Head of Charities at Birketts LLP
LEGAL COMMENT OF THE WEEK
TOPIC: Banning access by young people to social media
COMMENT BY: Alex Brown, Head of TMT , Simmons & Simmons
“The Prime Minister’s announcement signals a clear hardening of approach to online safety and, in particular, children’s use of social media. The announcement sets out a clear resolve to implement a ban on the provision of social media platforms to under 16s. That will need to go through the UK legislative process, but there appears to be cross-party support for such a ban.
And the UK is not acting in isolation. Australia has already enacted a world‑first ban on social media accounts for under‑16s, placing direct obligations on platforms to enforce age limits. France is progressing legislation banning social media for under‑15s, while Spain has announced plans for an under‑16 ban. Norway is also moving towards a statutory age limit of 15. Similar debates are intensifying in parts of the United States.
The proposed ban, as well as other protections to apply to u18s, will require the social media companies to grapple with the difficult task of age verification. The ICO’s recent enforcement activity in that area shows that there are difficult practical challenges to be overcome in relation to verifying a user’s age”.
.
COMMENT BY: Julian Hayes, Surveillance and Data Protection lawyer, BCL Solicitors
“[This week’s] announcement is unlikely to be a ‘one-and-done’ – tech-savvy children circumvent bans or experiment with even more dangerous online forums.
“The proposal is also stuffed with contradictions and problems. Clear tensions exist between protecting teens from social media dangers when, simultaneously, we say they are old enough to join the military and vote. Without prior exposure to the online world, how will young people build the digital resilience to cope when the guardrails are suddenly removed on their 16th or 18th birthdays?
“What of kids – the sick and housebound – for whom the online world is their only social outlet? And while the Government rushes to ban social media for youngsters, this measure will do nothing to ameliorate the looming risks to future generations posed by AI in terms of education, employment and mental health.”
COMMENT BY: Dai Durbridge, Partner in the Education Team, Browne Jacobson
“Banning social media for under-16s may feel like the path of least resistance for the government but it will likely create challenges for schools.
“We have already seen how readily young people can bypass restrictions using virtual private networks, older siblings’ accounts and fake images since the Online Safety Act 2023 was implemented. The Children’s Code, which regulates access to online services for children, was also introduced in September 2021 and, if it had been enforced effectively, could have made a big difference to ensuring children’s online life was designed with their safety in mind.
“It therefore appears to be a lack of enforcement, rather than lack of suitable legislation, that has meant children have not been protected. The quality of enforcement and the strength of the tools used to prevent children accessing social media must be addressed if the social media ban is to be effective.
“Schools are already expected to operate mobile phone-free environments by default, with pupils denied access during lessons, break times and between lessons. But a statutory ban on under-16s accessing social media platforms is a fundamentally different obligation.
“It will raise immediate practical questions that headteachers and governors need to be thinking about now. This will involve understanding what the expectation on looks like when a pupil is accessing banned platforms at home, and how pastoral and safeguarding staff respond when they become aware that children are using platforms they are legally prohibited from accessing.
“Schools should take proactive steps between now and spring 2027 by ensuring staff are trained on what the incoming restrictions will require, and communicating to parents and carers about what the ban covers and, crucially, what it doesn’t. Messaging services like WhatsApp and Signal are explicitly excluded from the social media ban, which means schools that permit or use such apps for communication will need to think carefully about the implications of that gap.
“The Department for Education should also consider how to integrate further digital literacy skills into the curriculum as delayed exposure to these platforms could actually make later use riskier, rather than safer, with a ‘cliff edge’ moment at turning 16.
“Given the horse has already bolted on social media, a broader public discussion should now take place on how we retain or divert some of the genuine benefits it offers young people. These include peer support networks – particularly for isolated or marginalised teenagers – creative communities and access to educational content.”
COMMENT BY: Matthew Bergman, US lawyer and founder ofthe Social Media Victims Law Center(SMVLC)
“The government heard the pleas of grieving parents, accepted the scientific consensus of child development experts on the dangers of social media to youth mental health and seen the outrageous corporate misconduct the social media companies own documents. Its ban on social media is a monumental step that firmly establishes the UK as leading the world on child safety online.
This ban heralds an important victory for society and parents, especially for the families who have tragically lost their children to the harms of social media and have been campaigning hard for the government take real action.”
COMMENT BY: Clive Summerfield, Online security expert and CEO of FARx
“Simply enforcing this ban with current age verification ‘age gate’ technologies isn’t enough to truly protect children and prevent access to social media platforms.
“Without accurate, continuous identity verification in place, such a ban will only be superficial with tech-savvy children being able to work around the restrictions, and is therefore doomed from the start.”
“There is no question that social media in its current form is highly damaging to children and young people. The government’s under-16s social media ban is welcomed by many but as the Prime Minister stated today it will be hard to legislate, to regulate and to enforce.
“Enforcement is the big issue here. Whilst there are excellent technologies in place to estimate the age of the person logging on to the platform, these ‘age-gate’ technologies don’t currently tie a digital identity to a biometric identity meaning they can’t continuously verify that the person using the platform is who they say they are. Or, in other words, that the “adult” accessing the One Time Passcode or changing the parental controls isn’t in fact their tech-savvy child who has figured out their password. This is a problem”.
TOPIC: Ashley Cain’s X-rated history on X
COMMENT BY: Anjali Malik, Associate, Bellevue Law
“Although these comments appear to pre-date his engagement, the nature of the language is highly relevant from an employment law perspective. Remarks of that kind would, in a workplace context, be capable of constituting harassment related to sex under the Equality Act 2010, regardless of intent. The issue for employers is therefore not just historic misconduct, but whether such behaviour undermines trust and confidence in a public-facing role and exposes the organisation to reputational risk. It also raises more difficult questions around due diligence particularly where material was publicly available, and whether sufficient steps were taken to identify and mitigate foreseeable risk, in light of the increasing legal focus on employers’ proactive duty to prevent harassment and maintain an inclusive working environment.”
COMMENT BY: Jo Mackie, Employment Law Partner, Michelmores
“Derogatory, sexist comments are discriminatory and unlawful in the work setting and a breach of the Equality Act. They are also unpleasant in everyday settings. It remains to be seen what the investigation into this latest celebrity allegation will find but discrimination like this brings a huge risk of lasting reputation damage to those who employ presenters who discriminate.”
TOPIC: Organisations will now be legally required to handle data protection complaints under the Data (Use and Access) Act 2025 meaning it will be mandatory for all UK organisations to implement a formal data protection complaints process
COMMENT BY: Eleonor Duhs, Partner and Head of Data and Privacy, Marks & Clerk
“The ICO has been asking individuals to resolve differences with controllers before lodging regulatory complaints for a long time. The changes put an onus on controllers to try to resolve those issues before they reach the ICO, but it’s not clear that this will be effective in stemming the ever-increasing tide of regulatory complaints.
“More and more decisions affecting individuals are going to be made by AI. It is likely that people will make greater use of the rights under data protection law to challenge those decisions. Organisations should ensure that they understand how data is used in their company and how their AI tools work. Proper accountability mechanisms need to be in place. Investing in governance frameworks will pay dividends and ensure that the complaints mechanisms coming in now don’t simply end up absorbing more time and resource.”
TOPIC: Moves in Parliament for Private Members’ Bills to forestall SLAPPs
COMMENT BY: Dr Costantino Grasso, University of Exeter
“Any reform must apply across the whole legal system, not be confined to a single category of wrongdoing such as economic crime or other forms of crime, because SLAPP tactics migrate freely across defamation, privacy, data protection, and environmental law, and partial coverage simply redirects abuse rather than preventing it.
“Judges need a flexible set of indicators, modelled on the Council of Europe’s 2024 Recommendation, with the exploitation of power asymmetry (particularly financial) placed at the centre rather than treated as a secondary factor; and once a claim is identified as a SLAPP, the court must be able to halt it immediately through mechanisms that do not themselves produce a chilling effect.
“Reform cannot stop at procedure. The Cadwalladr litigation showed that substantive defamation law itself can deliver ruinous outcomes for journalism judicially recognised as serving the public interest, so the guardrails must be built into the substantive framework as well, not only into the rules governing how cases are managed.
“The lawyers who design and execute these abusive claims cannot remain insulated from consequence. A clear professional duty to assess, before issuing a claim, whether the same indicators a court will apply are present, coupled with proportionate disciplinary sanctions escalating from reprimand to suspension or disbarment for repeated involvement, would dismantle the infrastructure that makes SLAPPs viable.
“Without these three elements, any new Bill will repeat the pattern of well-intentioned reforms that leave the underlying power imbalance, and the sword of Damocles hanging over investigative journalists, entirely intact.”
COMMENT BY: Pia Sarma, Chair of the Media Lawyers’ Association (MLA)
“Anti- SLAPP legislation prevents the weaponisation of the courts to silence public discourse. Legislation need not curb access to justice and an early dismissal mechanism can act as both deterrent and shield. I am pleased that these Private Member’s Bills offer a simple and fair system and I hope these legislative initiatives will succeed.”
COMMENT BY:Susan Coughtrie, Co-Founder and Co-Chair of the UK Anti-SLAPP Coalition
“For the last five years the Coalition has worked with SLAPP targets across society, who have been threatened in bad faith solely for speaking out, without any legal avenue to restrain the abuse. Support for addressing such conduct has come from different governments, political parties and stakeholders. Now we have the opportunity to turn this support into robust, accessible and universal protections for everyone, ensuring justice is available to all, not just those who can afford it. Left unaddressed, SLAPPs allow bad faith actors to control and restrict the information available to the public, impacting our knowledge of the world around us. As a result, protections, such as those announced this week, not only protect the person speaking out but the public interest information that sustains democracy. We welcome both Private Members’ Bills and encourage all parliamentarians to get behind them.”
COMMENT BY: Sayra Tekin, General Counsel, News Media Association (NMA)
“The Private Members’ Bills brought forward by Baroness Stowell and Sir John Whittingdale MP are a crucial opportunity to finally address SLAPPs head-on. These cases are designed to intimidate and exhaust journalists through abuse of our legal system, not to seek justice. We urge Parliament to back these efforts to ensure the UK has robust safeguards that stop abusive litigation early and decisively.”
TOPIC: Research published by the Home Office and charity Surviving Economic Abuse reveals that young men are oblivious to dangers of coercive control and economic abuse in relation to spending decisions
COMMENT BY: Rosie Schumm, Partner on the Family Team, Forsters
“The fact that some young men do not recognise these behaviours as abusive is very concerning. Economic abuse often operates as part of a wider pattern of coercive control and can leave individuals feeling trapped long after a relationship has ended.
“With the prevalence of banking apps and the relative ease with which money can be transferred online with facial recognition and a simple click, I have seen an increasing number of clients who have suffered this type of abuse. They may have normalised it for years or not even realised it is a form of abuse. There is often a dawning of realisation for them, perhaps a family member has told them how unacceptable it is and they have finally seen the light. Whatever the reason for their epiphany, they seek advice from a family lawyer to help them to obtain protection from the family courts.
“Thankfully, the family courts are increasingly aware of the role played by coercive control and economic abuse within relationships, and it is reassuring to see the government is now working with banks to prevent it. But there is a clear need for better education and training around the realities and consequences of this form of abuse.”
TOPIC: The generational rift dispute in the Bains family over £1m assets
COMMENT BY: Barny Croft, Partner, Private Wealth Disputes team, Birketts LLP
“This is an incredibly sad case that highlights how careful family members should be when reaching agreements between themselves. There is no telling what can happen in even the most cherished and trusting relationships; agreements reached at a time when everything is looking rosy, will look very different if relations sour, as they did here.
We see this type of scenario all the time: people trying to find a way to cut a corner to avoid paying tax, maximise government benefits, avoid care home fees, or improve their position during a separation for example, can find themselves horribly and disastrously exposed and vulnerable to the whims of others and changes in circumstances. Such cases are so common, yet so easily avoided if those involved get good legal and financial advice at the right times.”
LEGAL SECTOR APPOINTMENTS OF THE WEEK
AGILOFT
Face of the Future of Law?
Jason Barnwell (above) has been named in the US as the Chief Product Officer at AGILOFT, one of the leading names in data-first contract lifecycle management (CLM),
With a background which combines the law and technology Barnwell is one of those multi-disciplinary innovators who might be changing the way the legal world operates. Originally a mechanical engineer who went into software Barnwell then earned his law degree from the University of Southern California. He then built a 15-year career at Microsoft where he led the legal operations team responsible for running the CLM platform that powered Microsoft’s global procurement operations. This is a system which ties billions of dollars in procurement spend across an enormously complex supply chains. As Agiloft puts it, “He joins the product seat with a perspective that is rare in enterprise software: he has been the buyer, the builder, and the practitioner.”
Prior to Microsoft, Barnwell practiced law at Cooley LLP in the Emerging Companies group, advising startups and venture-backed businesses at the intersection of technology and law.
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