The Lawyer Asia Pacific 150 is the only research report to provide a ranking of the top 100 independent local firms and top 50 global firms in the region. The report offers critical review of some of the fastest growing firms and their strategies, a country-by-country guide to leading legal advisers and legal services market trends, plus exclusive insight into the current business development opportunities in the Asia Pacific. Read more
This year, The Lawyer’s annual ranking of the largest UK law firms by turnover is available as an interactive, digital benchmarking tool. For the first time this will allow you to manipulate each data set against the metrics of your choice.
A judge getting slammed by the Court of Appeal? A judge in discussions with a law firm for a new job?
It’s the knockout story of the day. The national firm is about to find itself at the centre of the biggest controversy to hit the bench in years.
It goes like this. Addleshaws said no to High Court judge Mr Justice Peter Smith, who was angling for a job in the litigation department (see story).
Then, nervous that its rejection may have caused bad feeling, the firm asked Smith J to recuse himself from an upcoming trial in which it was involved.
But Smith J refused. Addleshaws wasn’t happy. And so the firm went to the Court of Appeal.
It won. Big time.
Master of the Rolls Sir Anthony Clarke said Smith J’s conduct underlined the fact that he was “personally involved”. Ouch!
This is not the first time that the Court of Appeal has launched a stinging attack on the judge.
Following the Da Vinci Code judgment Lord Justice Lloyd said he found Smith J’s original judgment was “not easy to read or to understand”. He added: “It might have been preferable for him [Smith J] to have allowed himself more time for the preparation, checking and revision of the judgment.”
All is not lost for Smith J, though. We hear some firms still have vac schemes open.