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.
In The Lawyer 5 September Gary Hickinbottom re-stated his view that it was unacceptable for experts to have an interest in the outcome of a case.
While I would not necessarily disagree I have to ask whether the principle is any different from the legal adviser having an interest in the outcome of the case.
It is quite clear from the conditional fees agreement that there will be times when settlement of a claim will be best for the advisers cash flow and/or risk management but that the best advice will be to continue the litigation. It seems that lawyers are trusted to "do the right thing" in this situation.
Is there any good reason why other professional bodies cannot be equally trusted?
If the person on the street were asked whether they better trust a doctor or a lawyer I fear that it would be doctors who have the public trust.