The post Why it’s not too late to save the SQE appeared first on Legal Cheek.

The post SQE-you-later: Will the recent exam blunder deter future lawyers? appeared first on Legal Cheek.

The post Dealing with the mental ‘shockwave’ of the SQE appeared first on Legal Cheek.

The post Autism and the legal profession: are the two compatible? appeared first on Legal Cheek.

The post My experience of the SQE so far appeared first on Legal Cheek.

The post How will AI impact junior lawyers? appeared first on Legal Cheek.

The post ‘I taught myself SQE – here’s how I got on’ appeared first on Legal Cheek.

The post Would you let strangers ‘roast’ your CV? appeared first on Legal Cheek.

The year is 2013 — 10 years ago. The UK is still part of the EU; Emojis only depict one race; Manchester United have won another Premier League title and Siri is demonstrating its new “voice”. I am enjoying raising one child, contemplating the possibility of training to become a lawyer — an unassailable profession with a solid, scarcely changing career path.

Today, I am a qualified commercial contracts lawyer. Daily tasks include: asking Siri to remind me of all the important things I need to do today; consoling one child after Man United lose yet another game; monitoring the other child’s social media use; and working with amazing clients who continue to develop and use revolutionary technology.

All this naturally leads to reflection on how the world has changed in the last ten years, and some anxious speculation about how the next 10 years may unfold.

A career in law has always been projected as a “safe”, long-term career. The skills acquired during qualification will serve a variety of vocations, and everyone will need a lawyer at some point. Right?

However, technological advancements over the last 10 years, particularly the recent spurt of AI innovations, are making that “safe” career a little less certain.

Like many practising professionals, I cannot avoid becoming more and more reliant upon technology. I communicate via instant message, video conferencing and email. I access and save documents in a cloud-based system. I use specially developed software for drafting, research, filing and billing.

There is no denying that AI is getting smarter at an exponential rate. AI has been proven to increase productivity and efficiency within the legal industry. It is often used in document generation and bundling, legal analysis and legal research.

But lawyers do a lot more than just bundle documents. Using AI effectively will decrease costs for clients, and free up more time for lawyers to do what they do best. It will allow more time to be sounding boards, market readers, friends and confidants. We will have more opportunities to deliver specialist advice and provide increased client care.

But will AI soon be able to perform these human and more personable functions too?

AI is becoming so intuitive it can be used to support legal services, but what would it need to do to provide legal advice by itself? And what does this mean for aspiring junior lawyers?

Aside from interpreting legislation, understanding and maintaining a library of up to date case law, would it be able to correctly interpret and apply law to a client’s needs and provide practical or commercial advice?

In the future, it may be possible to create a predictive algorithm for complex contract negotiation. We could teach AI a number of variables including at the very least: what each party wants; what they are willing to concede on; how critical a contract is to a party and the “walk away” point.

But these variables are often bespoke to the scenario and the parties involved. There would be an infinite number of outcomes and if it were possible for a client to input such variables, the AI would unlikely take into consideration the human interactions which often support (or hinder!) successful negotiations.

As intelligent and efficient as AI is, there have been well documented cases of the risks posed by relying on AI completely.

In the otherwise uninteresting personal injury case of Mata v Avianca, Inc., a senior legal professional used ChatGPT to carry out his research, including sourcing precedents that supported the claimant’s case. The cases “found” by ChatGPT were made up and upon questioning the AI where it had found such cases, it provided further false responses.

This is just one example that AI, while an excellent support tool, still requires human intervention and supervision.

AI’s current development could be compared to the cognitive development of a young child, which I now know quite a lot about. Humans instinctively learn by watching and copying others, and even begin to learn how to manipulate a situation by saying things that aren’t true.

While there are a number of risks posed in using AI and there is a degree of uncertainty surrounding its place in the world, its place in the legal industry seems to have a positive effect on my role as a legal advisor. My job appears to be secure, for now.

In the next 10 years, I expect to see AI forming part of legal training courses, including how to draft an AI command to achieve a desired outcome. These will then start to appear as expected skills on lawyers’ CVs.

To continue to provide effective support and advice to my clients it will be important to educate myself and to fully understand how to use AI.

AI should be used to support elements of our work, to make us better at our jobs. Technology will continue to be a wonderful, ever changing commodity that with the right education can create a world of possibilities.

Phillippa Stubbs is a technology and outsourcing associate at Fieldfisher.

To learn more about technology and the law, sign up for this afternoon’s virtual event: ‘Secrets to Success legal tech edition — with Allen & Overy, Macfarlanes, Osborne Clarke and ULaw’. Apply now.

The post Will AI replace lawyers? appeared first on Legal Cheek.

As a new starter in a firm, it can be particularly daunting deciding if, and when, you are going to ‘come out’ to your colleagues. Something so subtle as implying you have a same-sex partner, or that you date people of a particular gender, can be a serious decision to make. You are vying for the approval of your team — and you don’t want any pre-conceptions to jeopardise your ability to get on with everyone in the team. It’s a consideration I had to make when beginning my career at Addleshaw Goddard (AG).

I think imposter syndrome can also affect this decision. As a graduate with no legal connections or a foot in the industry, I felt an extreme urge to prove to myself and others that I could thrive at the firm. Coming out felt like something that, going into my new role, could prejudice my ability to fit into the team and produce great work. Furthermore, you don’t want to rock the boat. I was worried that my lack of influence and a large network within the team would mean I would simply be too afraid to challenge someone on what they said to me if it made me uncomfortable.

Some people would argue that a person’s sexuality shouldn’t matter enough in the workplace, and it isn’t necessary to have to come out. Although I don’t believe that it is a necessity, sexuality and gender identity are key to being your authentic self at work — and everyone has a right to be able to do that. It’s also important to establish who you are to your team as soon as possible to avoid any awkward and embarrassing situations.

These are considerations I had to make before starting at the firm. I experienced that initial reluctance to be my authentic self and share my own interests/experiences as a queer person at first.

Thankfully, I had nothing to worry about — the firm had cultivated an environment that was respectful and allowed people like me to be comfortable in bringing their authentic selves to work. There were a few ways in which the firm demonstrated to me that I knew I could be open about my sexuality without fear of prejudice — and I could make the decision to come out safely.

Within my first week, I was introduced to a host of diversity and inclusion networks across the firm. These groups are set up to improve the experiences of different communities at the firm — including queer people. The networks are open to colleagues at all levels in all divisions. To see such a wide coverage of participants across the firm indicated to me that I could seek support from others in my decision to come out at the firm if I needed to. It was also reassuring to hear from other colleagues about their own experiences as queer people at the firm and the similar challenges we share coming out at work.

It was also really encouraging to see so many people around the firm wearing Pride lanyards from day one. It was a subtle yet powerful way of letting me know that I was welcome and would not be treated prejudicially by others.

I was also invited to attend diversity and inclusion training sessions as part of my induction into the firm. These are firmwide, compulsory talks that require all colleagues to think about how they would define inclusion. It also invites us all to think about systems of privilege and how they can play into the make-ups of firms. Holding these conversations in an open forum is a great way for all colleagues to recognise the role that they play as allies to queer people.

These are just some examples of ways that firms can help cultivate a community that is accepting and welcoming of all queer people — so much so that coming out didn’t feel as daunting as I initially thought it would be.

Isaac Orr is a litigation paralegal at Addleshaw Goddard.

The post Pride Month: Is it still necessary to come out at work? appeared first on Legal Cheek.

For decades, Sudan has been a battleground for justice and democracy, but the Sudanese Legal Network (SLN) is determined to change that narrative.

Rising from the ashes of conflict and oppression, a diverse coalition of the legal community and British-Sudanese diaspora have united to fight for the rights of the Sudanese people. With a mission to shed light on the dire humanitarian crisis and mobilise support, the SLN aims to bring about lasting change and create a sustainable support network for those affected.

Throughout the past three decades, Sudan has endured oppressive regimes, grave human rights abuses and seen the marginalisation of minority groups. In 1989, a glimmer of hope flickered as peace talks ignited, only to be extinguished by a coup d’état. In 2019, after months of relentless protests, a transitional period began with the establishment of the Sovereignty Council of Sudan, comprising military and civilian personnel. Yet, history repeated itself on 15 April 2023, during the final week of Ramadan, when intense clashes reportedly erupted between Al-Burhan (the Sudanese army general) and General Hemedti (head of the Rapid Support Forces). This power struggle unleashed a wave of violence, claiming hundreds of lives, injuring thousands, and leaving millions grappling with the devastating aftermath.

In a world often plagued by division, there are times when humanity transcends borders, religions and backgrounds to come together for a worthy cause. The SLN’s mission is to raise awareness about the pressing crisis unfolding in Sudan and to take action. Akil Hunte, a trainee solicitor, whose Caribbean heritage and strong relations with the British Sudanese community bind him to the cause, reached out to his contacts. Hunte thought that it was a devastating humanitarian crisis which was not being spoken about enough. Over several months the group which became known as SLN has expanded to include diverse members who, as allies, have created a powerful platform.

One individual at the forefront of SLN’s formation is Maab Saifeldin, a trainee solicitor and ‘lawfluencer’ who shares her inspiring journey and the motivations behind the creation of the SLN and the pivotal role the group plays in addressing the escalating humanitarian crisis in Sudan.

The SLN is looking for volunteers within the legal community to aid Sudanese British nationals. This assistance covers a wide range of needs, including helping individuals who wish to return to the United Kingdom or bring their loved ones. Additionally, volunteers will provide support to those who have already arrived in the United Kingdom, ensuring their successful integration into British society.

City law firms, among other significant contributors, have pledged their support in fundraising for the cause. Urgent funding is required to continue offering aid to those affected by the conflict. The situation in Sudan is dire, with shortages of medicine, food, water and fuel, as well as the destruction of crucial infrastructure such as hospitals, residential buildings and energy facilities. This has left the Sudanese people in a desperate struggle for survival, unable to access essential goods and services. They face constant violence and millions are trapped without the means to secure their safety.

The SLN aims to create a sustainable and comprehensive support system in response to ongoing conflict and humanitarian challenges in Sudan. The SLN’s objectives include addressing challenges faced by Sudanese people, coordinating legal assistance for those affected by the conflict, advocating for policies that benefit Sudan and its people, raising awareness of legal issues related to the conflict, promoting understanding of Sudan through knowledge-sharing, collaborating with other organisations and encouraging fundraising and support from the legal community.

You can follow the Sudanese Legal Network on LinkedIn, Instagram and Twitter. Legal professionals interested in joining the SLN should contact sudaneselegalnetwork@hotmail.com

The post UK lawyers rally in response to Sudan conflict appeared first on Legal Cheek.

With the increase in attention around artificial intelligence (AI) and technology, it’s becoming more and more apparent that there are some legal tasks that can be done by automation or highly sophisticated technology.

As a junior lawyer, you are often assigned smaller tasks to facilitate your learning, and often at a good cost recovery. Looking at the growing hype around AI, ChatGPT and other tools, some tasks done by people could be a thing of the past.

Below I look at some tasks which could be done by technology, potentially at a much faster rate:

1. Research

Research: the beloved ‘R’ word that many junior lawyers have heard when training. With highly intelligent forms of technology, it would not be radical to use software to look through vast amounts of legislation, case law and guidance. Lawyers often spend hours on these tasks, which can lead to increased costs and delays in legal matters. Having powerful AI, whether that is at law firms or at legal research providers, may prove to be a game changer in legal research.

2. Standard forms

In some areas of law, standard documents are used often. Whether that is for the court process or whether for an application to the Land Registry, AI may be able to assist in firstly finding the correct version, filling in all the details and highlighting any blanks. This could help streamline standard processes and improve efficiency.

3. Translations

If you’re working on international matters, you may need standard documents that can be used across different jurisdictions and continents. Instead of potentially having different lawyers from different organisations plus any relevant interpreters/translators, imagine if a computer could do it all. Translate a whole document, incorporate jurisdiction specific legislation — all without you having to make a phone call or email.

4. Summaries

Ever had to draft a long lease or contract? Ever had to then summarise the whole document before completion so that it is easier for clients to understand and mark key dates? Think about having a platform that can produce summaries in seconds and cover every key term and provision that is necessary.

5. Public databases

Think about the Land Registry and Companies House: these are platforms that have information available to the public. Imagine being able to run reports, download entries and find connections between companies and individuals, all in a matter of seconds. Some platforms already have access to large databases of information — imagine being able to connect the dots for some of the most used by lawyers.

Some of the above are already in the market and with time, they will become more sophisticated and more powerful. My excitement is about how the profession will look in five years and ten years’ time. Will lawyers only have to draft and manage clients if our AI friend is doing all the ‘programmed tasks’? Alternatively, will we have fewer lawyers as clients become sophisticated and utilise open-source platforms where they can utilise legal tools which provide them with quick and accessible documents?

Watch this space.

Baljinder Singh Atwal is an in-house solicitor at West Midlands Police specialising in commercial and property matters. He is co-chair of the Birmingham Solicitors’ Group and a council member at The Law Society representing junior lawyers nationally.

The post Could robots replace junior lawyers? appeared first on Legal Cheek.

It has long been asserted that our legal system, and in particular the criminal legal aid system, is the “finest in the world”. It is a cute soundbite, but having spent a decade at the coalface of criminal justice, I can quite frankly tell you; that notion is laughable.

Last month the Law Society published a shocking report which highlighted the crumbling state of our court buildings. Among the issues were asbestos, mould, seats and carpets held together by duct tape, leaking raw sewage, broken heating, and courts where disabled court users are unable access parts of the building. These issues, whilst wholly unacceptable, are sadly only one small aspect of a — now literally — crumbling justice system.

Defendants and victims are now routinely waiting years for justice, which is completely unacceptable, more so in cases involving serious violence or sexual abuse. There are significant delays in even the most routine cases. In March 2023 I am due to appear in a Magistrates’ Court trial relating to a simple matter of driving without due care and attention — a matter which took place in March of 2021.

There are almost 75,000 criminal cases now delayed as a result of continued backlogs and some trials are now being listed in 2024. Cases are collapsing due to the failures of an overworked, underfunded and poorly managed Crown Prosecution Service. Adjournments and wasted hearings are commonplace. Court directions and the Criminal Procedure Rules are routinely circumvented and treated as optional, often with impunity. Courts have been closed up and down the country, with many defendants and victims having to make long journeys to access justice. The majority of police investigations now fall into the ether and even the most routine charging decision can take months.

There is little to no communication or constructive dialog between the defence and the crown, particularly in cases before the Magistrates’ Court, or those sent by the police for a charging decision. Youths, and defendants with mental vulnerabilities are routinely being failed — criminalised rather than helped. The CPS are routinely represented in the Magistrates’ Court by prosecutors not empowered, or willing, to make decisions or exercise a modicum of common sense. Often, the only mechanism to focus minds and have a case properly reviewed and managed is to elect trial at the Crown Court where possible, further burdening an overworked system.

The tragic case of the Killamarsh murders has now triggered a review of how probation officers handle cases. Prisons are full, with inmates now being held in police cells as an overflow measure, and the rate of deaths in custody is the highest it has ever been.

There are failures and immense difficulties across every organ of our criminal justice system. How the system has not yet collapsed is beyond me. Taking stock of the above — a bit of asbestos seems rather insignificant.

The state of criminal defence is equally dire. The “fat cat” image peddled by the tabloid press could not be further from the truth — some criminal barristers are now being paid the equivalent of less than the National Minimum Wage.

In 2018 the average age of a criminal duty solicitor was 47; this rose to 49 in 2021. There are fewer graduates embarking into criminal defence than ever before — and perhaps with understandably good reason. No one goes into criminal defence for the money, but even genuine passion and a vocation has its limits, and is often overshadowed by a derisory salary that has not risen since the 1990s. That perhaps best explains the recent mass exodus of lawyers seeking an alternate practice area. Since 2007, over a thousand criminal defence firms have closed their doors.

In what should have been a turning point in 2018, HM Government recognised the serious concerns about the long-term sustainability of criminal legal aid. In response, it commissioned the Independent Review of Criminal Legal Aid led by Lord Bellamy KC. The Justice Secretary Dominic Raab went on to completely reject the advice of his government’s own review. The Law Society has now warned that there is no future for criminal defence solicitors unless the recommendations made by Lord Bellamy’s review are immediately implemented.

Whilst disregarding the advice of its own independent review and failing to ensure money is available for a properly funded criminal defence system, the government seems perfectly content to spend £300 million on rolling out the common platform case management system — a system so ineffective, useless and administratively burdensome that 97% of court legal advisors voted to stage mass walkouts over its inception.

The message to the justice secretary cannot now be any clearer — our criminal justice system is no longer the envy of the world. Rather, it is on a cliff edge. Urgent action and fundamental change is needed to avoid a complete collapse. Not at some arbitrary point in the future, but now.

Ben Brown is a solicitor advocate, Law Society elected council member for criminal defence, and former Crown Counsel to St Helena, Ascension and Tristan da Cunha.

The post ‘Our criminal justice system is quite literally being held together by duct tape — action is needed now’ appeared first on Legal Cheek.

Earlier this year, I was diagnosed with autism at the age of 24. In one way, it was an enormous relief. I have always felt my brain worked differently but couldn’t put my finger on why. Now I have an answer. With diagnosis came clarity, understanding, knowledge, relief — and freedom to finally live my truth.

Twenty-four is quite a late age at which to be diagnosed, but it is becoming increasingly common for women in particular to be diagnosed with autism in adulthood, because they learn to fit in and appear neurotypical throughout their lives, so they fly under the radar — this is known as “masking”. At first glance, I appear neurotypical, but those who know me very well are aware of the quirks that make me autistic.

I have written this article because I think it is really important to speak out and raise awareness of autism and neurodiversity within the legal profession. The sad fact of the matter is that I don’t know any openly autistic lawyers — maybe this is because they would rather manage their condition alone due to perceived stigma, or because they think it will hamper their career. However, statistically speaking, there will be other autistic and neurodiverse individuals in the legal profession. Giving these people a voice is critical.

Firms have a vital role to play in supporting this. At Pinsent Masons, where I am a trainee, we have a Disability Network and a specific Neurodiversity Network. Both work to support people across the business in their day-to-day working lives. It’s heartening and encouraging to see the firm make such significant strides in enabling its neurodiverse community and providing a forum for support and education.

The legal industry has come a long way. But inclusion is a journey rather than a destination and firms should always be seeking to adapt, improve and advance. Recruitment practices should facilitate the attraction of neurodiverse talent in a range of ways such as advertising an accessible assessment centre. For example, clearly setting out what to expect on the day, ensuring that any sensory needs are met (quiet room/no harsh lighting etc.), and providing equipment that might support neurodiverse candidates, such as noise-cancelling headphones.

The use of both in-person and virtual recruitment events serve to broaden access for all students and graduates, featuring neurodiverse employees speaking about their experiences of the legal profession. Regularly inviting dynamic and engaging speakers to be a prominent feature of the training programme to help inform and educate is incredibly powerful and demonstrates a commitment to representation. Preferably these speakers would have experience with neurodiversity or be neurodiverse themselves and be far more interesting than simple tick-box online training, which can also be quite patronising.

My experience is that people are often surprised when I disclose that I am autistic and say things like, “You can’t tell!” I know that they are not trying to be offensive, but it betrays a lack of understanding of how autism can present itself (particularly in adult women) and also assumes that being autistic is inherently deficient in some way; that it is good that it is not outwardly obvious. Actually, being autistic can be amazing! Proper education and training would hopefully go some of the way to debunking common myths surrounding autism and neurodiversity.

I think it’s important that neurodiverse employees are open about any conditions that need reasonable adjustments, so that the firm knows how to support them best and help them thrive. Furthermore, it’s also key that line managers know how to signpost support to the disabled individual in the first instance. Again, if autistic and other neurodiverse individuals feel confident in sharing their story, then awareness and support will hopefully become better, as will the signposting.

The issue of adult autism diagnoses (particularly for women) has recently been discussed a bit more in the mainstream media. The Organisation for Autism Research has found that 50% of boys with autism are diagnosed before age 11, and only 20% of females with autism are diagnosed prior to this age. Scientists believe that this is because females are better at “masking” their autistic traits. The legal profession now has an opportunity to embrace this momentum around late and female diagnoses and promote an environment in which everyone feels empowered and confident to be open about their experiences at work. After all, being able to be yourself at work and access the support you need is the foundation to a fulfilling career.

I don’t want aspiring autistic lawyers to feel like I did; like there are no role models and that they cannot be themselves at work. If reading this encourages even one individual to seek a diagnosis, or be open about an existing diagnosis, then that can only be a good thing in enabling an important dialogue and breaking down the stigma.

Concetta is a trainee solicitor in the property team at Pinsent Masons.

The post ‘I was diagnosed with autism during my training contract’ appeared first on Legal Cheek.

The Uffizi gallery in Florence revealed that it has commenced legal action against Jean Paul Gaultier.

The French luxury fashion brand used images of the museum’s famous painting Birth of Venus by Sandro Botticelli in its Le Musée collection.

The Uffizi Gallery’s director Eike Schmidt claimed in a statement that it is illegal to use the gallery’s artwork without permission. This, he says, is thanks to Italy’s cultural heritage laws which require anyone using an object of cultural interest for commercial purposes to obtain permission and pay a fee that will be determined.

Broadly this includes any object belonging to a public body or a non-for-profit private legal entity made over seventy years ago by an author or creator who is a deceased person or has been granted such a status by Italy’s Ministry of Cultural Heritage.

View this post on Instagram

A post shared by @jeanpaulgaultier

As Schmidt puts it: “if anyone wants to use this material, they must make a formal request, [and] if the request is granted, then they have to pay” – a succinct summary of the effect of Articles 107 and 108 of the country’s Cultural Heritage Code (CHC), which some have described as “pseudo-copyright“.

The Uffizi’s legal action follows its legal threat to Pornhub over the adult site’s inclusion of the gallery’s raciest works in the porn platform’s guide to the most explicit artworks top Western art galleries. Pornhub was quick to back down, removing anything classed as a piece of Italian cultural heritage from its “interactive guide to some of the sexiest scenes in history”.

What is striking about all this is the ease with which Italian cultural heritage laws have avoided any more complicated discussions about copyright and have preserved a valuable revenue stream for the country’s museums and galleries through public law mechanisms.

This has prevailed even in the face of new developments in art such as the rise in popularity of digital art and non-fungible tokens (NFTs). The Uffizi had been collaborating with the Milan-based company Cinello to produce digital versions of its artworks with an agreement to split the proceeds 50/50.

But the use of Artificial Intelligence to generate images now raises more challenging questions about how the CHC should be applied to the likes of Google’s Imagen, Open AI’s DALLE-2 and MidJourney. Let’s break this down a bit.

AI image generators will only be in breach of Italy’s CHC if the AI generator has not been granted permission to reproduce an image classed as Italian cultural heritage.

This stands regardless of whether the use of the reproduction is for profit or meets one of the exceptions to the requirement to agree a fee with the relevant cultural institution listed in Article 108 (3(2)) CHC: “a non-profit basis, for purposes of study, research, free expression of thought or creative expression, promotion of knowledge of cultural heritage”. Even where no fee is required (as per Art. 108 (3(2)), applicants are expected to reimburse any costs incurred in the process of granting the permission.

So, it appears that these AI companies may have to make a call to the relevant Italian art galleries, especially since many have begun to commercialise their tools. But this will only be the case if AI generators are using a reproduction of the artworks.

What’s most intriguing about this is not whether there has been a reproduction, but how many times an image may be considered to have been reproduced.

If a reproduction is included in the dataset used to train the AI, then there could be a breach in relation to the input. But what about the output for an image that is produced? This is complicated by the fact that the popular diffusion model for producing these images does not use an exact reproduction.

It is hard to get an indication on this point from the case law and I have found it difficult (perhaps unsurprisingly) to track down the offending images in order to consider to what extent they have been edited.

There are three principal cases to look to for guidance. First, in 2017 the Court of Florence ordered the travel agency and tour operator Visit Today, which had reproduced the image of Michelangelo’s David statue in its advertising to remove all images of Michelangelo’s statue of David from its digital and print promotional material and publish the decision in three national newspapers and on Visit Today’s website.

In the same year, the Court of Palermo found that an Italian bank had breached the CHC when including an image of the city’s Teatro Massimo in their adverts. Most recently, the Court of Florence issued an injunction against Studi d’Arte Cave Michelangelo S.r.l. for using an image of Michelangelo’s David.

But there is little in these cases on the point at which something may be considered a reproduction. Do the style, the tone, or the artist’s recognisable traits matter? Looking at the IP academic Andres Guadamuz’s images generated on MidJourney from the command ‘Starry Night by Vincent Van Gogh’ may allow you to better visualise the problem.

To further complicate matters, without guidance from a court, Italy’s many and various cultural institutions will exercise the power to chose how they apply the CHC which may open up inconsistencies.

This is certainly something for Italian cultural heritage lawyers to ponder in the future. But, for now, here’s some example of the output that DALLE-2 has produced of Italian heritage that fallen foul of these law (Michelangelo’s David), so that you can ponder that question too!

The post The Uffizi follows up Pornhub success by suing Jean Paul Gaultier appeared first on Legal Cheek.

Growing up in a very warm, welcoming, multi-cultural British society, I could still never imagine seeing someone that looked like me apply or even become Prime Minister. On 25 October 2022 Rishi Sunak became the first British Asian, first non-white and first ethnic minority person to become Prime Minister.

Even more fitting, was that on this same day, many Sikhs, Hindus, Jains and indeed many more people from all backgrounds and religions across the world celebrated Diwali and Bandi Chhor Diwas. The celebration of light, liberation and justice. Such a unique moment and milestone took place on a day that was already meaningful and special to so many. The route to the top job is not without scrutiny of course, with debate around legitimacy and calls for a general election from the opposition party. This together with the backdrop of economic uncertainty, the energy crisis, the impact of war and more adds to the complex picture of how Sunak became our leader.

Just two weeks prior to this on 12 October, history was also made in a similar vein. Lubna Shuja became the first British Asian President of The Law Society. The legal profession historically and currently is criticised for its lack of progress in many different areas concerning diversity and inclusion. Whether that is the lack of representation in senior roles, gender pay gaps, ethnicity pay gaps, poor retention rates and more. For Shuja to become the first British Asian President is remarkable, considering the number of hurdles not only to get into the profession but also to flourish. Added to this achievement is that Shuja is a sole practitioner and calls Birmingham home and as a lawyer that has seen the profession led from and been very London centric, it’s extremely refreshing to see it being led out of somewhere other than the capital. For lawyers across the nation, this shows you can achieve great things, regardless of where you are in the country and what area of law you practice.

Time will tell as to how successful and how much of an impact any new leader will have, but to be an ethnic minority person in Britain and be part of the legal profession, it has been absolutely incredible to see this change. The feelings and experience of these times reminded me of the inauguration of Barack Obama in 2009. I remember the feeling of change, optimism and positivity. Now in 2022, this very much feels like our ‘Obama’ moment. Can one person change so much? Practically no, but what they can do is provide a very tangible and memorable achievement which will inspire and ignite passion in new generations.

It’s incredible to think within the legal profession and the world of politics, we have people from ethnic minority backgrounds which are in the highest ranked positions. I hope these historic events are more than symbolic changes. I hope these moments really change our narrative and culture in society. I want these historic changes to really create a wave of enthusiasm and ambition for all. For me it has opened up a whole new understanding of what can be achieved and shattered any previous glass ceilings.

Baljinder Singh Atwal is a solicitor at West Midlands Police and co-chair of the Birmingham Solicitors’ Group. You can follow him on Twitter.

The post Diversity milestones in law and politics appeared first on Legal Cheek.

This week Legal Cheek reported on a new piece of “thought leadership” by Ince-owned corporate advisers Arden. Its analysis of the Magic Circle and what the future might hold for the elite quintet, was eye-catching to say the least.

The report likens the Magic Circle to “a room full of millionaires that refuse to believe that their business model is in trouble.” Although the analysis suggests that the fate of the UK’s elite corporate law firms is far from certain, it does affirm that “they probably don’t have the right answer” to the challenges that lie ahead.

So, what exactly are these challenges? And have they been overstated in this research?

The report starts off by comparing the demise of UK investment banks in the face of US competition to the Magic Circle’s situation today.

Banking’s ‘Big Bang’ was caused by a major regulatory shift in 1986 that brought the traditional banking system and the securities industry closer together, enabling large US banks to capitalise on the momentum they had been building up in the previous decade.

Since then, the report states that “US banks’ commanding position in their home market has given them the financial firepower to hire the best dealmakers and the resources to invest in Europe”, completing the hegemony of American banking that exists today.

The message appears to be that a similar fate awaits the Magic Circle, but just without the suddenness of the ‘Big Bang’. A lack of transatlantic strength and less attractive pay packets could see the Magic Circle’s stature relegated below their US rivals.

This problem facing the Magic Circle is apparently worsened by the steady development of the Big Four. The researchers allege that whilst US competitors are eating into their high-end work, the Big Four are taking some of their market share for mid-tier mandates, squeezing the UK elite from both sides.

Arden are not alone in arguing this. Just yesterday Christopher Saul, former senior partner at Slaughter and May who now runs Christopher Saul Associates (a consultancy business), drew the same comparison to banking in 80’s and highlighted the same arguments that the Arden researchers have done here.

This analogy to US banking is, to my mind, overly simplistic. Whilst the researchers have picked up on some interesting trends, the report just scratches the surface, providing an incomplete analysis of the facts and the current position of the Magic Circle.

First, let’s take a look at the much-lauded size of the heirs-apparent to the City legal market’s throne. The researchers contend that “size matters”, citing a range of metrics including UK revenue growth, UK corporate revenue growth, and profit per equity partner (PEP).

The strongest statistic to back up Arden’s claims is the changing of the guard in the top 50 firms by UK corporate revenue growth. US firms have turned the tables on their UK counterparts here. In 2020, UK firms outnumbered US firms by 27 to 23. Now, the reverse is true (27 US to 23 UK). Furthermore, Latham & Watkins topped the charts on corporate practice revenue for the first time.

Whilst certainly significant, this does not necessarily mean that the Magic Circle have been knocked out of the City elite for good. Factors such as a particularly bumper year for private equity (PE) deals should be kept in mind, especially given that many of these US firms’ USP is being a ‘one-stop shop’ for PE.

The stats do not point to a slow down in work for firms being shunted down the list — financial results for 21/22 were very strong. Rather, the unusual post-pandemic economic environment perfectly suited US firms’ strengths. Now the economic winds are blowing in a different direction, it remains to be seen if US firms can maintain their position as the emphasis shifts to disputes, and restructuring and insolvency work.

Arden’s use of PEP as a benchmark for heralding a new era of US dominance is, in my view, one of its weakest arguments. It doesn’t address different partnership structures, with US firms operating a two-tier system of salaried and equity partners, whilst the Magic Circle (to greater and lesser extents) have far more equity partners.

Rather than a sign of US dominance, I would argue this instead showcases one of the US firms’ greatest weaknesses. Whilst they are dangling a lot of money under the noses of ambitious graduates, they are experiencing real retention problems at more senior levels in large part due to how tightly guarded their equity partnership is.

The cohorts of new partners from 2008, 2009, 2012 and 2013 at Kirkland & Ellis, for example, have all left, according to The Lawyer (£). This leaves a gulf of 20 lawyers with around a decade and a half’s experience that needs to be filled by lateral hires; a real problem if the firm cannot get enough replacements or improve partner retention rates.

And this likely stems to a certain extent from US firms’ culture of ‘working as an individual’. As I have explained before, the ‘eat-what-you-kill’ model — whereby partner compensation is based on the revenue they generate for the firm — is pervasive in elite US outfits. You need only look as far as the recent decision by Boies Schiller to offer its UK associates a choice between a fixed salary and meeting your 2,000 billable hour target, or get paid in line with the number hours worked for proof.

This is an inherently riskier model that can yield improved productivity and therefore larger profit margins. But, equally, a more individualistic, money-centric culture can collapse in the face of adversity and in-fighting (the demise of Dewey & LeBoeuf is a good reminder of this). The report pays no attention to this cultural divide that exists between elite UK and US firms. Yes, big money may be more attractive to graduates, but if these firms struggle to retain their senior lawyers, it will cost them more in the long run.

There are then two ‘what if’ arguments that Arden’s researchers says will damage the Magic Circle. By contrast, and with respect to those behind the research, I believe that the evidence points to the opposite conclusions.

The first is that the Magic Circle doesn’t have a “credible US presence”. It is not yet clear whether the Magic Circle can make serious in-roads into the US market. But, as I have pointed out before, the elite quintet are clearly up for pushing the strategy to its maximum, breaking their lockstep systems in order to play the Americans at their own game. Allen & Overy is most clearly demonstrating this shift — it generated over half of its global revenue growth from its activities in the US which is now home to more litigation partners than in the UK.

It’s hard to predict what the future holds (Britain’s economic turbulence certainly hasn’t helped). However, I am inclined to lean more on the side of Nick Crasner, strategic advisor to the boards of US law firms, who last year made the “bold claim” that “the UK Magic Circle is on the brink of a golden age of expansion into the USA. Between 2022 and 2027 they will, finally, break into the US market”.

I feel more decisive on the second “what if” argument. That is the contention that the Big Four are seriously threatening the Magic Circle’s market share on mid-tier work. PwC’s UK head of legal Teresa Owusu-Adjei, who is not herself a lawyer, has admitted to not viewing traditional law firms as her primary target but rather hopes to open up new legal revenue stream with a more tech-driven and integrated approach.

Again, look at what Nick Roome, UK head of KPMG Law has to say: “If clients just want a stand-alone piece of legal work, they can certainly come to us for it, but the chances are that they already have established relationships for it. So where is the reason for them to work with us?”. Roome’s answer is that the likes of KPMG offer an integrated approach with the aim of becoming “the most technology-enabled legal services practice on the planet”.

It would be amiss to not mention that the Magic Circle and many others are also investing large amounts into their legal tech offerings. Clifford Chance has its Applied Solutions business, A&O has Fuse, Linklaters has CreateIQ and there’s also the Freshfields Lab (amongst other things). Far from having it all their own way, the Big Four are trying to open up a new, more tech-focused legal revenue stream and have the uphill battle of taking on the existing players who are also racing to do the same thing.

All in all, the weathervane on the future of the City is not indicating the Magic Circle will need a requiem any time soon. Yes, their unique features may be less clear to aspiring solicitors than they were in the past. But to compare the demise of British banking in the face of a new US hegemony to the Magic Circle’s circumstances ignores the US elite firms’ flaws, how to properly evaluate “size”, and UK elite firms’ US strategies.

The future remains far from certain, but the Magic Circle are not on the verge of being dealt a deathblow by their US rivals.

City Insider has keen interest in all things City law.

The post Magic Circle v US firms: A moot point appeared first on Legal Cheek.

The opposite of poverty is not wealth. It is Justice — Brian Stevenson.

The issue

In recent publications which have documented the current strikes from barristers across England and Wales, the criminal bar’s lack of funding has been the central issue. Undoubtedly, there have been several publications documenting the stories of many underpaid barristers and the increasing backlog of cases. Without a doubt, these are issues of high importance. However, I dare say the strikes represent a more pertinent issue, one which should garner more public support. That is the rule of law, a term coined by Professor AV Dicey which encompasses the following:

• The law views all people as equal (no one is above the law)
• Accessibility to the law for all
• An independently functioning judiciary
• The accessibility of justice for all people

The funding crisis simply resembles the downshift in which the criminal justice system (CJS) has been placed lower on the list of importance when considering areas requiring more public funding. What does this mean to the average person? In addition to more underpaid barristers and an increased court case backlog the nature of our CJS is being threatened meaning:

• An insufficient number of criminal barristers to take on cases and reduce the current case backlog
• The justice system will mainly benefit those capable of privately funding their cases
• Victims will wait longer to obtain justice through the court system

Despite insufficient funding not being the primary issue, sufficient funding plays a large role in providing the criminal bar and the CJS with an adequate set of remedies for their current issues.

Retention and recruitment

The notion of ‘fat cat lawyers’ is a mirage for many members of the criminal bar, especially for junior barristers and aspiring barristers. The severity of the funding crisis has meant about one in eight barristers have left the profession in the last year. According to the Bar Council, “the number of barristers declaring their practice was full time publicly funded criminal work was down more than 10 per cent (from 2,670 to 2,400)”. Considering there are less than 6,400 criminal barristers and only 2,400 full-time publicly funded criminal barristers to cater to approximately 60 million people in England and Wales the figures clearly display an unsustainable and undesirable trajectory.

In addition, many aspiring barristers with a passion for criminal justice work, are now reconsidering their choices when faced with the potential hourly rate of £6.25 upon qualifying. This figure falls well below the national living wage. When factoring the thousands of pounds spent and years invested by aspiring barristers into their education such figures make other areas of the law more attractive and viable options. In the absence of sufficient funding, fewer aspiring barristers will consider careers as criminal barristers and judges. Their years of hard work should be incentivised. The current state funding threatens the future of the criminal bar as it is no longer a sustainable career path for many. This causes damage to the efficiency and growth of our CJS. More importantly, it threatens the rule of law within our society. How can the rule of law be upheld without the necessary people to enforce it?

Money talks, empty pockets don’t

The publicly funded criminal bar plays a vital role in ensuring equality of opportunity within the CJS. In many ways, it creates a level playing field between those who can afford to cherry-pick their own privately funded legal team and those who cannot. Public funding for the criminal bar creates fairness for the public. A contrast to the feudal justice system of the Medieval Ages, which largely benefitted the nobility. In modern terms, the rule of law just means no one is above the law. Therefore, publicly funded barristers play a vital role in the upkeep of the rule of law within our CJS, as those who cannot afford legal fees can still hold wealthy criminals to account. No funding means no justice.

Delayed justice

Between 2010 and 2019 there were 295 court facilities closed, while the backlog of cases continued. The side effect is the lack of resources for the court to facilitate and administer justice effectively and efficiently. This in addition to other factors causes a large number of outstanding criminal cases. On the ground level, it means victims of crimes have to wait longer for their cases to be heard. This is damaging to the public’s confidence in the CJS, as members of the public will begin (if not already) regarding the CJS as incapable of providing them with timely and just outcomes.

The future

The future of the publicly funded criminal bar depends on the support and funding provided in the criminal bar’s darkest hour, which is now. The issue is not funding but sufficient funding is a large part of the solution. The primary issue is the rule of law. The way in which it is prioritised and preserved is central to the current strikes.

• Barristers leaving the profession.
• Aspiring barristers reconsidering their options.
• The court case backlog increasing.
• The closure of hundreds of court facilities.
• Delays in victims receiving justice.

These are all side effects of when the rule of law is not prioritised and supported with adequate funding despite these encumbrances, the strikes held display the dedication of members of the criminal bar to preserve the efficiency of our CJS. The barristers striking across England and Wales have demonstrated their commitment to advocating the interests of their clients which are the public. Their persistence in highlighting the damage faced by the CJS and demanding adequate solutions should instil hope in the aspiring barristers, practising barristers and the public with regard to the future of the criminal bar and the CJS.

Edmund Mawoko is an aspiring barrister. He is a law graduate and vice president of Middle Temple Student Society.

The post Deterred from justice: The criminal bar’s darkest hour appeared first on Legal Cheek.

UK law firms’ financial results season has made for some interesting reading.

On the surface, it looks like the Magic Circle might be striking back against their US competitors’ home turf. Allen & Overy is the clearest example of this. In this year’s results it generated over half of its global revenue growth from its activities in the US. Freshfields is the other prominent example. The firm confirmed that it has been on a US hiring spree, doubling the headcount of its Silicon Valley office that opened in 2020. So, as US firms become yet more prominent in the City market (Latham & Watkins and Kirkland & Ellis now both generate more revenue from London corporate deals than the Magic Circle), is the fightback on?

In the past, British firms have struggled to gain traction across the Atlantic. Linklaters and Freshfields’ efforts date back to the 70s, whilst A&O first launched in New York in 1985, but have failed to weaken US firms’ grip over their Wall Street clients. Still unsatisfied, these firms were left racking their brains over possible mergers to try and find a solution — A&O got close to one in 2019 though in the end its talks with US outfit O’Melveny & Myers fell through when sterling moved sharply against the Dollar during the final stages.

Clifford Chance‘s disappointment after it went out in pursuit of the Californian dream is a particularly telling parable. The firm made a foray into California in 2002, only to find itself closing its new offices in Palo Alto, Los Angeles and San Diego by 2007. At the time, Clifford Chance was the world’s largest law firm by revenue. Yet it appears it could not consolidate its position in Silicon Valley. Why?

Legal recruiters in the area at the time could easily identify the problem: the Magic Circle firm was not able to recruit enough lawyers owing to its inability to break away from its culturally engrained lockstep pay structure which saw partners paid by seniority rather than the revenue they had generated for the firm. In short, the more polite British tradition of respecting firm elders couldn’t cut it in the face of dollar-eyed pinstriped Americans.

This comment from a midlevel associate across the pond at Kirkland & Ellis for American Lawyer’s Midlevel Associates Survey really sums up the US mentality: “I used to think that I was the most money-hungry person out there, but working at Kirkland has made me realise that, as much as I love money, there are A LOT of people that apparently love it more than I do.”

Since then, these British firms seem to have seen the error of their ways. What has followed is a tweak to salaries where the US office becomes an exception to the lockstep system. In June last year, A&O matched the Davis Polk pay scale for its offices in Los Angeles, New York and Washington D.C. (see below). Davis Polk have since moved to Cravath scale (the standard-setters for law firm pay). Linklaters felt compelled to follow suit just a few weeks later at the beginning of March.

US payscales

The Magic Circle have also been pushed to make ambitious hires with multi-year salary guarantees. Intellectual property lawyers have proved to be some of the most sought after with A&O offering lucrative deals to raid Goodwin Procter and White & Case IP partners for its Silicon Valley clients. IP litigation with jury trials is notably much bigger bucks than in jurisdictions like England and Wales or Germany.

Both UK-headquartered firms and US Wall Street firms have made head turning hires in their competitors’ heartland. For example, back in 2017 Kirkland & Ellis grabbed the attention of the City legal market by knabbing Freshfields’ star partner David Higgins in a reported $10 million-a-year deal. Freshfields hit back in 2021 by hiring M&A hotshot Damien Zoubek from Cravath which very rarely suffers from any lateral raids (Cravath has a mystique comparable to Slaughter and May in the UK for those unfamiliar with the US firm that gave its name to the top-end payscale).

But, in the midst of the battle, it is clear that the winner from all this is currently US law firms’ culture and strategy. US firms are amongst the most profitable in the world with the likes of Wachtell, Lipton, Rosen & Katz, Kirkland & Ellis, Davis Polk, Sullivan & Cromwell and many more drumming up PEP figures that the Magic Circle could only dream of.

The US firms also have other tricks up their sleeves. Their practice of speedily promoting associates to salaried partners allows these lawyers to bill at a partner level sooner than their British counterparts. This is why looking at the marginally lower partner billable rates at US firms, as covered by Legal Cheek last week, is somewhat misleading.

The ‘eat-what-you-kill’ model — whereby partner compensation is based on the revenue they generate for the firm — appears to have consumed British manners. And this may be causing the tectonic plates of global megafirms to shake. Although giving way to US payscales in their American offices might feel like an amazing magic trick or a special exception for the good of the firm, the spell of the sacrifice could be wearing off.

Talking to the Financial Times, A&O’s US Senior Partner Tim House recently noted: “I don’t know what [London-based partners’] tolerance is to watching other people get huge pay cheques. It’s a bunch of sensitive fragile egos in this industry.”

Recent research suggests that the London legal market remains a prime target for US law firms. So the challenge to UK law firm culture is unlikely to change. It is likely that the highly profitable likes of Macfarlanes and Slaughter and May who have not opted for the megafirm model could well become the last bastions of truly British legal culture. However, the Wolves of Law Street are not immune to facing challenges of their own. With a two-tiered partnership made up of equity and salaried partners and a culture centred first and foremost around money rather than personal ties and loyalty can be dangerous… even for a wolf.

City Insider has keen interest in all things City law.

The post British firms cannot avoid the Wolves of Law Street appeared first on Legal Cheek.

Friends, it is high time to speak about a real pandemic plaguing the legal profession: our Mental (ill) health. With your permission, I raise this topic out of care and respect for all my colleagues including you. Before becoming a trainee solicitor, I qualified as a medical doctor. I have been trained to care. Despite its prevalence, mental health is palpably, poorly addressed in legal circles, presumably due to stigma and reputational outcomes. We hear it from all sides. Regardless of a firm’s size, location, or prestige. No one appears to be immune.

A snapshot: In the general population (before COVID-19), amongst women, major depression is the leading cause of years lived with a disability, anxiety ranks 6th on the list. Amongst men, depression ranks 2nd, drug use disorders 7th, alcohol use disorders rank 8th and anxiety ranks 11th. In England, one in four will experience a mental health disorder during their lifetime. This is a staggering picture of an unhealthy society.

Now let’s pause for a second and look ourselves in the mirror: with the glamour, glitter and promises of financial return, legal employees are often pushed to work endless hours, typically supervised by poorly trained, mid-range management who almost thoughtlessly delegate tasks with little to no acknowledgement to personal or family life.

Too often we hear: ‘These are the sacrifices we make’. This carelessness is normally coupled with little to no employee autonomy, or the promotion of employee safety where there is no openness to feedback, criticism, and mutual respect, heavily regimented because of hierarchical structures. This is the picture described by the American Bar Association in 2021.

Add to that scant, poorly signalled, or insufficient resources available to prevent episodes of mental ill health or clinically treat it. The perfect storm arrives with the absence of a rigid separation between professional and personal spheres. After all, everyone is meant to be accessible all the time, right? We have adopted the above scenario as a sine qua non recipe on the road to legal success. Except that we are failing. And this is a collective failure.

It is all too farcical. That road has led us to failure, at the expense of our most precious resources — our people’s mental health, and their families who often bear the brunt. Let’s have an honest conversation: who are we trying to fool? What is the real trade-off we are dealing with here? And how can this occupational hazard or quagmire be undone?

It is high time we take mental health seriously. This comes to the heart of what being a lawyer is: to promote justice and to do what is right, in the words of the SRA’s Code of Conduct; and to act with integrity, “to maintain trust and act fairly”, always understanding the “ethical, regulatory, and legal implications” of our actions in the provision of service. But aside from learning the principles of business law and litigation, we are not thought to think about what these words truly mean to us. When was the last time you were invited to consider what these words mean?

The World Health Organisation defines good mental health as a state where: “every individual realises his or her own potential, can cope with the normal stresses of life, can work productively and fruitfully, and is able to make a contribution to her or his community”. In the UK’s legal profession, the scale of mental (ill) health is pandemic: A 2021 report issued by wellbeing charity LawCare describes that amongst 1,700 consulted UK legal professionals:

• the average recorded burn-out score was 42.2 (a cut-off score of 34.8 denotes “high risk of burnout”). The “exhaustion” element of burnout considerably exceeded the recommended cut-off point, particularly when participants were asked to score “there are days when I feel tired before starting work” (score of 3.36 out of 4).

• 69% responded they had experienced mental ill health in the past 12 months. Either anxiety (60.7%), depression (28.9%), physical manifestations of stress (28.9%) low mood (48.4%), strain on relationships and family life, and feelings of being unable to cope due to stress (22%).

Dear colleagues, where have we gone wrong?

1. A cultural change is paramount for everyone. A legal profession with persistently low levels of poor mental well-being is neither sustainable nor healthy. How long will this continue until it ceases to attract the best talent in a generation already described as ‘anti-ambition’ because of its heightened concern for mental wellbeing? How long will it take until clients perceive their lawyer’s ability to protect their corporate interest cannot be properly discharged in unhealthy occupational environments? Or until this hurts the reputation and integrity of legal workplaces and the profession as a whole?

2. A cultural change will support equity, diversity, and inclusion. Structurally, issues abound thanks to poor or non-existent managerial training, particularly in the lack of psychological support, growth and development needs of staff and lack of basic mental health support. Culturally, the picture is all too common: bullying, harassment, sexism, racism, and the all-too-common passive-aggressive behaviour that seasons interpersonal, hierarchical relationships. For some, the sink-or-swim equation of ‘up or out’, encouraging unsustainable hours, and unrealistic billing targets, is all too common.

3. A cultural change will involve multiple stakeholders. Employers, regulators, and professional bodies have a moral and legal duty of care to protect and promote the health of their employees and members. That means recognising mental (ill) health is not a weakness and is neither unsuitable for legal practice. This will in turn generate positive outcomes, forcing professionals to discuss strategies and develop protocols to disclose difficulties without the fear of retaliation, penalty, or stigma. As employees, we all have a duty of care to initiate dialogue and look after our colleagues in equal measure. It is good for our interpersonal relationships, good for the office, and it is excellent for business.

Unfortunately, talent, especially young talent is too often wasted precisely because it is disproportionately affected by chronic anxiety disorder, depression, substance abuse (whether prescription, illegal or alcohol use) and many other forms of self-harm. We hear it all too often at law school and later from colleagues working everywhere in the legal career. It is indeed a pandemic.

Gavriel is a qualified medical doctor, turned trainee solicitor.

Struggling with the stress of work? Contact LawCare via its helpline or live chat

The post ‘An open letter to my fellow lawyers — it’s time to be completely honest about mental health’ appeared first on Legal Cheek.

“This Bill is therefore profoundly anti-human”, concluded Conservative peer Lord Moylan when debating the Animal Welfare (Sentience) Bill in April.

In an earlier debate on the same Bill, Lord Herbert stressed the importance of the distinction between animal rights and animal welfare. Whilst acknowledging that “we should treat animals humanely, compassionately and properly”, he ultimately concluded that “the doctrine of animal rights is unhelpful in guiding us as to how we should treat animals”. So what’s this legislation all about?

The Bill in question, which has since received Royal Assent, was initially mooted as a post-Brexit replacement for Article 13 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union. Article 13 states that “animals are sentient beings” and therefore Member States must “pay full regard to the welfare requirements of animals, while respecting the legislative or administrative provisions and customs of the Member States”.

In its final form, the Animal Welfare (Sentience) Act 2022 re-affirms in law that animals are sentient and sets up an Animal Sentience Committee to oversee how government policies affect animal welfare. Ministers will have to respond in Parliament to its reports within three months. But ultimately, the Minister in question gets the final say. The Act also notably expands the legal definition of animal to include cephalopod molluscs and decapod crustaceans (like lobsters and octopuses) alongside vertebrates.

That much is clear. But what this legislation has to do with animal rights is not so obvious. So what are Lords Moylan and Herbert so worried about?

Describing exactly what rights are is a tricky task that remains the subject of much academic debate. But most broadly and basically they could be described as “any sort of legal advantage” in the words of the American jurist Wesley Hohfeld. Rights consist of claims to something (such as the right to life) and liberties (meaning the freed to engage in or refrain from certain actions like the right to freedom of expression). Thus far, it appears that the legislation may satisfy Hohfeld’s very broad definition of a right, but it does not look like the animals defined in this Act have gained any liberties or have much of a claim to anything.

To understand what has triggered such opposition, we need to explore two theories of rights: will theory and interest theory. These theories both provide criteria for who can hold rights. As Saskia Stucki explains, will theory views the purpose of rights is promoting and protecting some aspect of an individual’s autonomy and self-realisation, whilst interest theory has a lower threshold only requiring rights to protect or advance some aspect of an individual’s wellbeing and interests.

Accordingly, possessing agency and legal competence is the criteria for will theory. Interest theory, however, only requires the subject of the right to have an interest that should be protected because the subject has some intrinsic moral value (it can be made better or worse off in some way).

It is interest theory that is the root of Lords Moylan and Herbert concerns. This is because the Animal Welfare (Sentience) Act satisfies interest theory’s criteria mentioned above. It aims to protect certain animals’ interests (although it does so rather weakly) and clearly acknowledges the moral value of these animals by labelling them as sentient. So, are Lords Moylan and Herbert’s concerns that this Act is the beginning of animal rights that “is a complete upturning of our established view of moral conduct and “a completely new anthropology”? Does the Act really generate animal rights?

Well, it does so if you are convinced of interest theory’s explanation of rights and you can identify the liberty or claim animals have obtained. For me, this is not enough to constitute a right. Interestingly, Stucki would disagree. She argues for a further distinction between simple and fundamental rights, explaining that, even where weak (in this case, ministers must merely consider and respond to assessments on how animals might be affected by policy decisions but can still brush these aside after acknowledging them), such welfare legislation amounts to a simple right. But in the grand scheme of things, this is just nit-picking.

What is interesting in all this is how political opposition to animal welfare legislation has turned to animal rights as its new angle of attack. In this case, Lord Herbert and others sought to dress animal welfare legislation up as animal rights. As we have seen, there is some overlap between the two, but the distinction is clear enough.

Indeed, this is reminiscent of the early attempts to pass the first animal cruelty laws over 200 years ago. William Windham MP, who spearheaded the opposition to such legislation back then, decrying the Cruelty to Animals Bill 1809 for permitting Parliament to legislate on matters of private morality. He argued that legislation was dangerously excessive. Today, opponents of welfare legislation argue that the rights such legislation may or may not entail is dangerously excessive.

Proponents of such animal legislation have therefore always had to challenge the foundations of our legal systems. Then the famous barrister Sir Thomas Erskine did so by re-interpreting Christian dogma underlying the jurisprudential framework as a moral trust. Humanity, as trustee, therefore owed animals legal protections. Today, the problem is the increased blurriness of the lines between animal welfare legislation and animal rights.

We have always struggled with the problem of how we can best weigh up the interests of animals against our own. But it is important that there are those who recognise how easy it is to bark up the wrong tree about animal rights and call out those who use it to dog whistle and cast scaremongering aspersions.

Will Holmes is reporter at Legal Cheek and a future trainee solicitor at a magic circle law firm.

The post Are we barking up the wrong tree about animal rights? appeared first on Legal Cheek.