The Lawyer’s new China Elite report contains the most detailed research available on the PRC legal market and contains unparalleled insight into the country's leading law firms. They vary in size, practice focus and geographic coverage, but they all share one common quality – ambition... 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 legal profession last week hit out at government proposals to scrap juries in fraud trials, with practitioners instead blaming case management for the collapse of some high-profile prosecutions.
The Law Society and the Bar Council led the way in slamming the Government after the Attorney General, Lord Goldsmith announced plans for judges to try serious fraud cases without a jury.
Individuals also criticised the plans. David Farrer QC, head of chambers at 7 Bedford Row, said some judges were not up to dealing with complex fraud cases. "There are a lot of judges who have had little or no experience as practitioners of conducting trials of this kind," he said.
Many fraud lawyers argued that recent high-profile collapses, such as the Jubilee Line case, did not constitute a failure of the jury system.
This week's announcement comes before the report of Crown Prosecution Service inspector Stephen Wooler into the Jubilee Line trial. It is anticipated that the jury will not be blamed for the trial's collapse.
However, there was some support for the plans. Lawrence Graham corporate investigations head Andrew Witts said: "In my view, the criminal trial of complex fraud cases without juries is worth exploring in certain situations."