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.
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.