Despite the legal sector’s ‘unprecedented wage inflation’, recent research has revealed that one in five trainee solicitors in London receive below the recommended minimum salary. According to Douglas Scott Legal Recruitment, 20% of trainees who work in the capital receive less than the recommended minimum annual salary of £22,794.With the average shortfall increasing from £2,816 last year to £2,914, the number of trainees in London who are paid less than the recommended wage remained the same as in 2021, when it was also 20%.However, it was found by Douglas Scott that the circumstances for trainees who work outside of London has ‘improved significantly’, with 16% earning less than the suggested minimum of £20,217 compared with 25% in 2021. The average deficit in pay for trainees working outside of the capital similarly dropped from £2,638 in 2021 to £1,452.Douglas Scott’s study revealed that on average, trainees in London were paid £34,930, an increase from £32,190 last year, whereas the regions average salary climbed from £23,300 to £26,336.It also discovered that pressures on trainees in London have risen, with junior lawyers in the capital working approximately 44 hours per week, compared with 41.5 hours per week in other regions.Associate director at Douglas Scott, Jonathan Nolan, stated: ‘The last 18 months or so, the demand for talent has resulted in salary increases across all practice areas and job types. Legal is no different from other business sectors in that respect. The main driver for the increase in pay for trainees living outside London is likely to be trickle down as opposed to altruism.‘Unfortunately, some of London’s law firms are failing to read the room, leaving many of its trainee solicitors living close to the breadline and I fear the next Law Society recommended increase, with inflation so high, will see many more fall below the threshold.’A compulsory minimum salary was previously set by the Solicitors Regulation Authority, this was howeverscrapped in 2014 and the SRA now specifies that just trainees receive the national living wage.

Russia has refused to send representatives to the International Court of Justice (ICJ) this week, as Ukraine requested the court to bid Russia to promptly end its invasion and stop ‘crimes against humanity and war crimes’.Ukraine states Russia’s ‘full-scale, brutal invasion’ – expressed by Vladimir Putin as a ‘special military operation’ to avert genocide in eastern Ukraine – is revolved around ‘an absurd lie’, which turns the 1948 Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide ‘on its head’.‘Russia’s lie is all the more offensive, and ironic, because it appears that it is Russia planning acts of genocide in Ukraine,’ Ukraine’s lawyers reported to the court.The ICJ is being urged to put forward ‘provisional measures’, including demands for Russia to immediately cease its military efforts and announce that no acts of genocide, as claimed by Russia, have been actioned in the Luhansk and Donetsk regions of Ukraine.Joan E Donoghue, the court’s president Judge stated that Russia’s ambassador to the Netherlands, Alexander Shulgin, has ‘indicated that his government did not intend to participate in the oral proceedings’. ‘The court regrets the non-appearance,’ she remarked.Ukraine’s representative, Anton Korynevich stated: ‘This is of course not the first time that Ukraine has experienced first-hand Russia’s disrespect for international law. Now the world understands the depth of its disrespect.’He further commented: ‘The fact that Russian seats are empty speaks loudly. They are not here in this court of law. They are on a battlefield waging aggressive war against my country.‘This is how Russia solves disputes, but Ukraine had another position and respects international law and this court of law. But, even still, Russia knows international law matters. Why else would Russia try to justify its aggression?’Korynevich remarked that Putin’s allegation of genocide is ‘a horrible lie’, expressing to the court: ‘Putin lies and Ukrainians, our citizens, die. It is not Ukraine who commits genocide – it is Russia and its political leadership and military personnel who commit crimes against humanity and war crimes.’The pressing hearing was expected to be heard from Russia’s representatives on Tuesday morning, althoughit concluded later this week with the court stating it will ‘render its order as soon as possible’ – but it appears unlikely that Russia would accept any orders set out by the ICJ.

International Women’s Day rapidly turned from a PR opportunity to a corporate ordeal on Tuesday, as firms were faced with the anger of a Twitter Bot.The Gender Pay Gap Bot (@PayGapApp) had a straightforward premise to quote the tweets of companies and organisations mentioning IWD on Twitter, and highlight their most recent salary gap between men and women.However, the outcome was an exposure of what some may suggest is the hypocrisy of praising the virtues of equality without putting it into practice. Some companies swiftly  deleted their original tweets, but this arguably worsened the situation.Multiple organisations were targeted, including several law firms such as Blake Morgan, Ashtons Legal, Browne Jacobson, DWF Law, White & Case, Mishcon de Reya and Shearman & Sterling. Each companytweeted references to IWD, and each were then revealed to have approximately a 20% hourly pay gap between men and women.Mishcon strongly opposed any suggestion of virtue signalling. We tweeted some statistics on female entrepreneurship,’ a spokesperson stated. However, despite the circumstances being fair or not, some firms will have detected a significant increase in their social media profile as a result. 

As HM Courts & Tribunals Service prepares to introduce a new regime designed to remove conflict from the legal process of separation, solicitors will be unable to apply for a divorce on behalf of their clients for one week, as of the end of this month.HM Courts & Tribunals Service has now confirmed that the ‘old service’ will be unavailable from 31 March, with a new system set to begin on 6 April.Applications saved on the current service will need to be submitted by 4pm on 31 March, and paper applications should be received by the court by the same time.From 31 March to 5 April, the digital service will not accept new applications. Practitioners will not be able to apply on the current paper or digital systems like before, or have access a saved digital application not yet issued by the court.However, HMCTS will carry on accepting urgent applications in which the issue of the divorce petition is pressed to time. Decree nisi and decree absolute applications that have been issued will be saved and continue to be available on the service.The new system pilots a new era of ‘no-fault’ divorce, taking away the ability to make allegations about aspouse’s conduct, and enable couples to end their marriage jointly.HMCTS confirmed that it has communicated with practitioners about the updated system, including focus groups, interviews, demonstrations and discussions to explain and test the upcoming changes and collect feedback.‘Since it was possible to submit applications for divorce online in 2018, followed by the whole process going online during 2019, we have found that a significant number of clients are comfortable handling the process themselves. The system is user-friendly and straightforward for simple divorces,’ Clyne stated.A partner in the family team at Fletcher Day, Caroline Ford, commented: ‘In circumstances under the present law, where a divorce petition uses unreasonable behaviour there is the cost to the client of drafting a list of unreasonable behaviours sufficient to convince a judge that there should be a divorce. This cost will be removed, resulting in the costs of divorce being less.‘The removal under the new law of the ability to defend the decision to divorce means that there will be no legal fees in connection with defended divorces. As a result of the new divorce law coming into force, Fletcher Day’s fees for divorce will be less than usual as the time it takes to draft the divorce petition is reduced.’

Solicitors have been accused of ‘rewriting history’ after maintaining they did not  disregard their right to fees by taking extra security. Lawyers representing the liquidators in Candey v Crumpler & Anor informed the Supreme Court it could be assumed that the London firm had hoped to end its lien through the formation of the new security.They attested that a solicitor owed a fiduciary duty to their client to describe the expanse of his interest, and the new agreement did not explicitly preserve the lien.Representative of Crumpler, David Holland QC claimed it was ‘crystal clear’ that the plan was intended to replace the existing fees agreement when entering the new arrangement.‘If the solicitor did not make clear that he intended to retain the lien, the court is entitled to infer that he did not intend to retain it,’ Holland further noted.It was argued earlier in the hearing that Candey was being penalised for protecting itself from the possibility of a client who is unwilling or unable to pay their fees. Peak Hotels & Resorts Limited had been represented by the firm in litigation, but was owed several hundreds of thousands of pounds in unsettled fees, so therefore negotiated a fixed fee agreement and deed of charge.When Peak broke down, liquidators affirmed this was a floating charge rather than a fixed one and made it less likely that Candey would be reimbursed the estimated £4.7m it claims to be owed.The liquidators declared in court this week that Candey had already received £2.64m in fees for acting for Peak before the new arrangements, and then received an additional £941,359.They insisted there was ‘nothing surprising or uncommercial’ about the Court of Appeal having found them in favour, and they dismissed the suggestion that this result had a ‘chilling effect’ on access to justice.Holland stated: ‘Whether the new security has replaced the lien is not a matter which the solicitor may decide unilaterally.’ He additionally said that the terms of the fixed fee arrangement suggested it was planned to replace the prior agreement, since the new security under the deed of charge comprised the same property as the lien and was given more priority than the lien.

As the war in Ukraine intensifies, leading UK firms are considering dropping Russian clients as attention is directed on the legal profession’s links to the country.Several UK firms have offices in Moscow and other Russian cities and – despite there being no inclination they have done anything wrong – pressure is increasing for professional services outfits to cease all links with the country.However, the Law Society has backed firms representing Russian clients, and especially those trying to ensure UK government sanctions are lawful. Stephanie Boyce, Society president I. said: ‘It’s the job of solicitors to represent their clients, whoever they may be, so that the courts act fairly. This is how the public can be confident they live in a country that respects the rule of law – unlike Putin’s tyrannical regime.‘Solicitors are highly regulated and are not allowed to bring spurious objections to processes – if they challenge the government’s actions, it’s because they think the government is at risk of breaking its own rules.’A White & Case spokesperson announced: ‘We are reviewing our Russian and Belarusian client representations and taking steps to exit some representations in accordance with applicable rules of professional responsibility.‘Our Moscow office is open and continues to operate. We are complying fully with all applicable sanctions, and we continue to closely monitor this rapidly evolving situation.’A spokesperson for Baker McKenzie noted: ‘With offices in Moscow and St Petersburg, we are reviewing and adjusting our Russia-related operations and client work to align with all applicable sanctions and comply with these fast-evolving laws.‘We do not comment on the details of specific client relationships, but this will mean in some cases exiting relationships completely.’A statement from Linklaters stated: ‘The situation in Ukraine is deeply distressing and our immediate thoughts are with the Ukrainian people. We’re actively monitoring the situation and working to ensure the safety and support of colleagues and their families. We’re also reviewing all of the firm’s Russia-related work.’Edward Sparrow, the chairman of City of London Law Society said: ‘The City of London Law Society condemns the Russian invasion of Ukraine as an egregious breach of international law and of the international rules-based system, both of which underpin our peace and prosperity. The CLLS stands ready to assist HM Government in its response to Russia’s actions. All sanctions applied by the UK and our international partners should be complied with in full.’In a briefing to MPs for attempting to hold up the sanctions process, foreign secretary Liz Truss has critiqued law firms. She commented that the government should ensure these measures were ‘legally watertight’.It has also been reported that prime minister Boris Johnson’s official spokesperson stated that Russia should be treated ‘like a pariah state’, and that support from City law firms, accountants and banks should not be given to the Russian regime.However, Labour MP Justin Madders announced to Truss this week that: ‘No matter how distasteful we might find it and how damaging it might be to those law firms’ reputations, even oligarchs are entitled to legal representation because that is part of what makes us a free and democratic society.’He stated that ‘the best way to deal with these issues is to ensure that the laws are watertight in the first place’, further noting that the government should have ‘the best, most expert lawyers available to ensure that no loopholes can be exploited’.

As the Russian invasion unfolds, a free advice service has been launched by Immigration lawyers to offer help and support to Ukrainians needing refuge in the UK. In excess of one hundred lawyers have registered so far this week with the Ukraine Advice Project UK since it was set up. Through its website, [email protected], the service aims to connect those needing help with specialist lawyers. It was created by barristers Jennifer Blair, of No 5 Chambers, Miranda Butler, at Landmark Chambers, Simon Cox, at Doughty Street Chambers, and solicitors Alex Piletska at Turpin Miller in Oxford and John Vassiliou, at Scottish law firm Shepherd & Wedderburn. Supported by CJ McKinney of Free Movement, the project is encouraging more lawyers to assist. Over 100 requests for advice have already been received. It tweeted: ‘We are working hard to allocate as many as possible. Please bear with us as we are currently facing high demand.’ The group noted that its help is a ‘short-term response’, which will possibly be passed onto another organisation better suited to dealing with pro bono help in the medium term. In contrast to other EU countries, the Home Office has not waived visa requirements for Ukrainians wishing to flee to the UK, however it recently introduced concessions to enable a wider range of people to enter the country who have UK relatives. At the weekend, the lawyers’ group began following a tweet which stated: ‘Calling Ukrainians arriving at UK borders without a long-term UK visa! If you have any problems at immigration control, and you don’t have/ can’t get a lawyer, my DMs are open this weekend. Me & colleagues will find you a lawyer to help you stay in the UK til it’s safe to leave.’

Digital contracts provide ‘the most exciting technological opportunities since computer processing power and the internet’, the master of the Rolls has announced, disclosing the next stage of the government-backed LawtechUK initiative. The ‘smarter contracts’ project intends to encourage the move to digital media from paper when producing legally binding contracts. These smarter contracts are largely defined, scaling from the application of electronic signatures, to machine-readable digital documents, to ‘self-executing’ contracts, which may be fused with blockchain technology.Supporting the initiative, law commissioner for commercial and common law, Professor Sarah Green, noted that ‘Digital and smarter ways of contracting could revolutionise the way we do business, particularly by increasing efficiency and transparency.’ Green stated that the Law Commission’s decision that the current law of England and Wales is able to underpin the use of smart legal contracts ‘confirms that the jurisdiction of England and Wales provides an ideal platform for the use of a wide range of smarter contracts in practice.’In an accumulation of case studies, the smarter contracts initiative has laid out what it maintains are examples of the technology currently in place. They include: • Contract management tools allowing contracts to be interpreted by both humans and machines in order for the data they contain to be immediately extracted• The usage of digital documents and block chain technology within supply chains • Smarter parametric insurance contracts offering rapid payments to be made once the relevant data is recorded – such as, when flights are delayed or storm damage arises• Self-executing contracts being pivotal to renewable energy microgrids, with the automatic recording of transactions and instant payments for modest amounts of energy• Smarter contracts and blockchain technology being used to accelerate the purchase, sale and registration of properties • Smart legal contracts and non-fungible tokens being safely bound to the ownership of physical assets.Sir Geoffrey Vos, master of the Rolls and chair of LawtechUK’s UK jurisdiction taskforce commented: ‘Smarter contracts and blockchain technology are already changing the way we work. The Smarter Contracts report is a living demonstration of use cases including automated contracting, the automation of house purchases, smart supply chains reducing friction in global trade, digitised insurance pay-outs, smart energy microgrids, and artworks bought and sold as non- fungible tokens. These are not things that might happen in years to come. They are happening now.‘English Law and the UK’s jurisdictions are ready to provide the legal foundation to allow these technologies to enter mainstream business practices. They offer the most exciting technological opportunities since computer processing power and the internet.’

As recent government figures reveal that the legal aid sector continues to shrink, time is limited for the lord chancellor to commit to significantly increase legal aid funding, or otherwise face a possible strike by the criminal bar.If the government fails to take action by Monday to accelerate its response to the criminal legal aid review, which suggests an additional £135m a year to help the system return to its former status, the Criminal Bar Association will ballot members on action.In his most recent update, CBA chair Jo Sidhu QC, noted that over the past 20 days since hundreds of criminal barristers indicated their eagerness to take action if the government fails to proceed quicker, Dominic Raab‘has responded with nothing other than deafening silence’.The government has pledged to respond to Sir Christopher Bellamy’s advice by the end of March. However, Sidhu commented that the government did not need an additional three months, after their response, to seek, ‘a timetable that pushes us to the end of June’.He further noted: ‘If you thought that prospect was depressing enough, then you certainly will not welcome a further update from officials at the MoJ who tell us that, in the wake of the consultation, government will need until the end of September 2022 before any necessary statutory instrument can be drafted and brought into effect’.With numbers having fallen since 2012, reform is urgently needed for the criminal legal aid sector. The amount of firms with a criminal legal aid contract dipped from 1,080 last September to 1,067 last month; for civil legal aid, the number dropped from 1,401 to 1,381 over the same period of time. Stephanie Boyce, Law Society president I. commented: ‘We are continuing to see the number of firms with criminal and civil legal aid contracts falling. This further illustrates what Sir Christopher Bellamy, chair of the independent review of criminal legal aid, described at the justice select committee as the “parlous state” of criminal defence solicitors.‘On the civil side, our heat maps have shown the growth of advice deserts. Investing in civil legal advice can nip problems in the bud and save significant expenditure in other public budgets.‘We would urge the Ministry of Justice to follow through on its commitment to address the sustainability of the civil legal aid system, as well as implementing the recommendations of Sir Christopher’s review as soon as possible.’