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.
Fresh uncertainty has arisen over lawyers' uplifts in conditional fee cases just days before the Law Lords are meant to establish guidelines on this crucial issue affecting thousands of lawyers
Thousands of cases are now waiting in the wings for a Court of Appeal judgment on a tiny RTA case that will establish whether or not lawyers, having been entitled to the usual uplift for winning a case, can then receive a separate uplift on so-called 'super satellite litigation'. The RTA case, which began life before a Liverpool district judge but has now reached the second highest court in the land, was effectively settled after one party, represented by Peter Ralls QC, head of 29 Bedford Row Chambers, accepted liability. However, lawyers for the other side, having been entitled to an uplift, applied for a summary assessment of costs and then sought an uplift for work done on that supplementary part of the litigation. Ralls said that thousands of similar uplift applications, particularly in Liverpool and Manchester, have entered the system. This landmark case was referred to the Court of Appeal where the judge ruled it should be expedited until after the Lords rule in Callery v Gray, due to take place at the end of this month. The Lords will decide whether insurance premiums are recoverable and establish whether or not lawyers' success fees should be fixed at approximately 20 per cent. Ralls said: "We argued the other side was entitled to not more than 5 per cent. "My concern is that once the precedent has been set then it will have a significant effect on solicitors."