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.
The House of Lords last week agreed to hear the Bank of England’s appeal in the BCCI Inquiry, which could have vital ramifications for legal privilege.
However, Lovells partner Christopher Grierson, who represents BCCI’s creditors, disputed claims that the Court of Appeal’s earlier restriction of legal privilege in the BCCI case could ever have had a major impact on Lord Saville’s Bloody Sunday Inquiry.
Grierson told The Lawyer: “In my view, there’s a world of difference between the private BCCI Inquiry and the public statutory inquiry into Bloody Sunday.”
It is understood that BCCI’s creditors submitted an objection to the appeal on the basis that leave to appeal was denied in very similar circumstances last year.
Freshfields Bruckhaus Deringer partner Ian Terry, for the Bank of England, said he hoped the Lords would consider the case before the end of the summer session.
It is not yet clear how narrowly they will construe the terms of reference, but the Lords could concievably use the appeal to rule on the extent to which all non-litigation-based lawyer-client communications are protected. Alternatively, it might restrict judgment to the narrow terms of the BCCI case.