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 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."