David Locke on why the rationale for the proposed jury reforms is grossly inadequate
"The next board meeting of every law firm should have on its agenda the following item: why have we not read this book?"
David Locke on Lord Mandelson, the Epstein files & the court of popular opinion
Unworkable & unethical? David Locke unpicks the flawed drafting of the End of Life Bill
Legislating against deepfake images seems necessary, but the practicalities are complex, writes David Locke
With political divisions growing ever more pronounced, demonetisation is emerging as one of the principal weapons deployed to silence debate, argues David Locke
Claire Christopholus & David Locke on a clinical negligence claim that ran again & the influence of Bailey
MOVERS & SHAKERS
Jurit LLP—Caroline Williams
Private wealth and tax team welcomes cross-border specialist as consultant
Freeths—Michelle Kirkland Elias
International hospitality and leisure specialist joins corporate team as partner
Flint Bishop—Deborah Niven
Firm appoints head of intellectual property to drive northern growth
NEWS
Talk of a reserved ‘Welsh seat’ on the Supreme Court is misplaced. In NLJ this week, Professor Graham Zellick KC explains that the Constitutional Reform Act treats ‘England and Wales’ as one jurisdiction, with no statutory Welsh slot
The government’s plan to curb jury trials has sparked ‘jury furore’. Writing in NLJ this week, David Locke, partner at Hill Dickinson, says the rationale is ‘grossly inadequate’
A year after the $1.5bn Bybit heist, crypto fraud is booming—but so is recovery. Writing in NLJ this week, Neil Holloway, founder and CEO of M2 Recovery, warns that scams hit at least $14bn in 2025, fuelled by ‘pig butchering’ cons and AI deepfakes
After Woodcock confirmed no general duty to warn, debate turns to the criminal law. Writing in NLJ this week, Charles Davey of The Barrister Group urges revival of misprision or a modern equivalent
Family courts are tightening control of expert evidence. Writing in NLJ this week, Dr Chris Pamplin says there is ‘no automatic right’ to call experts; attendance must be ‘necessary in the interests of justice’ under FPR Pt 25
Copyright © 2026 LexisNexis
