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.
At a recent conference, separate panels of English and German lawyers solved a case study. The audience was impressed by the English solicitors' Anton Piller order and broad discovery - until it emerged that it would cost ten times more to bring the case to trial here than in Germany.
As Lord Woolf prepares for another review of access to civil justice, this tale highlights his dilemma. We have the finest tool for resolving disputes, but at breathtaking cost.
Should English courts offer "rough and ready" justice to bring the cost within the reach of the public? Unaffordable justice is no justice at all. Public confidence may evaporate unless something is done. And lawyers will be blamed.
Can costs be cut without sacrificing the best features of our system? Could courts dispense with the more onerous procedures if they are not needed? Lengthy oral argument would be contained. Discovery might be avoided. Laborious oral proof of every fact could become a thing of the past. Even cross-examination of witnesses need not be sacred. What if the court could dispose of cases on the documents where it was not persuaded a trial was needed.
Is this far-fetched? Most are possibilities under our present rules. But bias in favour of full adversarial trials rules them out. Perhaps it is time to think the unthinkable.