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 has ended the confusion over the legality of contingency fee agreements by refusing leave to appeal in a landmark Court of Appeal judgment.
The decision marks a victory for Caversham-based Taylors in Thai Trading, which has been debated in Parliament. Its effects can be seen in the Access to Justice Bill which substantially codifies the decision.
The case involved solicitor Wilfrid Taylor, acting for his wife, who would only be paid if she won. As reported in The Lawyer (26 May), the Appeal Court held it lawful for solicitors to take contingency fee-based cases provided they do not charge an uplift fee.
Such arrangements were previously banned unless specifically allowed under statute. The decision in Thai Trading was questioned in Hughes v Kingston CC when the Divisional Court apparently accepted it had been decided in error.
But as Taylor's barrister, Jason Williams of 3 Dr Johnson's Buildings, says, this "victory" ends the confusion.