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 Lord Chancellor, Lord Irvine's flexibility on the merits test for cases involving actions by citizens against the state and public interest cases is to be welcomed.
As he said in his address to the House of Lords last week, these important cases would never be approved for legal aid if the merits test was to stand at its current 75 per cent, so a lower threshold for such cases may be necessary. However, he seems determined to go ahead with the 75 per cent merits test for most other non-money civil cases. Most lawyers believe that this level is unrealistic and that the threshold should be lower.
During the debate, Lord Lester of Herne Hill was just one of many who expressed grave doubts. He told the House that he could not remember a single case which had a 75 per cent certainty.
Meanwhile, the Lord Chancellor's incessant references to fat-cat lawyers is distracting from the real issues. The public needs to hear some real debate on the matter instead of being thrown this red herring.