*/
‘No Deal’ is looking ‘No Good’ for lawyers and their clients. Rival jurisdictions are jostling for position. It’s high time the government heeded repeated legal advice, argues Bar Chair
The Bar Council adopted a neutral position during last year’s EU referendum campaign, although in the public interest and in order to try to inform debate we published succinct and accessible papers on the legal consequences of exiting the EU.
Since the referendum, and whilst the politics and debates have lurched in every direction, we have continued to spell out, in our Brexit Papers (now in their third edition and 24 in number), some of the critical considerations of exiting the Union as they may affect families, migrants, businesses, employers and employees, consumers, victims of traffic accidents, the environment, fisheries and farming, financial services, cross-border law enforcement, product standards, intellectual property rights and competition law, tax – and yes, because we work in all these fields, how lawyers themselves will be affected.
Others, including the Commercial and Chancery Bar Associations, the City, the Judiciary, The Law Society and many other experts in the legal services sector, have also been drawing attention to what is at stake and coming up with some constructive suggestions as to the way forward, given the potential impact on our standing upon exit from the Union.
What is our current standing? There are only so many statistics that you can digest at once, but try these. The legal services sector adds more than £25bn gross value to the UK’s economy each year, almost three times the size of the German legal sector and six times bigger than that of France. The UK accounts for 10% of global legal services fee revenue. 27% of the world’s 320 legal jurisdictions are founded on our common law. The law of England and Wales governs 40% of global disputes involving arbitrations. Two-thirds of nearly 1,100 claims issued in the UK Commercial Court in 2015 involved at least one party whose address was outside England and Wales.
There is quite a lot at stake, and many competitors, not just in the EU-27 but in rival jurisdictions hoping to oust the UK as the leader in the field of dispute resolution, are, metaphorically, rubbing their hands.
What can we do? We can and should retain a certain amount of confidence that the quality of what we provide, our incorruptible and independent judiciary, our world-class professional services, and our linguistic, geographical, and geo-political advantages, outstrip what our competitors can offer.
But to be complacent is foolish, given the scale of the change that exiting the EU will trigger. Last month Lord Neuberger suggested that ‘Brexit is operating as a spur to encourage all involved in the provision of legal services in London to strive to ensure that those services are even better than they already are.’ Of course competition acts as a spur, but competitors need, as they say, a level playing field. There is little reason think that the EU-27 will feel the need to provide one, absent mutual benefit.
So the times are uncertain and as everyone knows, uncertainty is bad for business. Is there anything the government can do now, to reduce it?
Our outgoing Lord Chief Justice characteristically took up the cudgels in his recent Mansion House speech and warned that ‘… the common good urgently requires clarification of a number of issues in relation to Brexit. First, on applicable law, certainty is needed. It can be secured through the incorporation of the provisions of Rome I and II into English law… Second, choice of jurisdiction clauses should be respected. There is the strongest case that this should be supported through the United Kingdom acceding as a contracting State to The Hague Convention on Choice of Court Agreements. Third, it is essential for the UK that we work with the EU to ensure that there is a simple and flexible regime for the mutual recognition of enforcement of judgments for the future.
‘Many months have elapsed since these points were made clear by the judiciary and the legal profession to Her Majesty’s Government. There is no reason for further delay.’
So, as the Bar has repeatedly advised the government, there are a number of things it can and should do, not for the sake of lawyers but for the sake of the country. If legal services are worth something to the country, following some legal advice may be a smart thing to do.
What about lawyers and our clients? Do we matter in all this? What would ‘No Deal’ mean? Brexit and the Legal Services Sector, a recent publication to which the Bar Council contributed, spelt it out. Here is a taster:
‘No Deal’ does not look too clever when it comes to the current pre-eminence of the UK’s legal services sector. The sector does not operate in a silo. For example it underpins our financial services sector, which in turn generates a very large proportion of GDP.
So what is the overview? The goose that lays the golden egg is our international reputation for the delivery of justice. It is not merely the judges, but also the lawyers who appear before them, who advise and represent clients at home and abroad, with exceptional skill and dedication, who have built up that reputation over time. As we all know a reputation painstakingly built can be swiftly lost. It is time for those who hold our reputation in their hands to concentrate on what is at stake and to take meaningful steps to reassure. Now.
Since the referendum, and whilst the politics and debates have lurched in every direction, we have continued to spell out, in our Brexit Papers (now in their third edition and 24 in number), some of the critical considerations of exiting the Union as they may affect families, migrants, businesses, employers and employees, consumers, victims of traffic accidents, the environment, fisheries and farming, financial services, cross-border law enforcement, product standards, intellectual property rights and competition law, tax – and yes, because we work in all these fields, how lawyers themselves will be affected.
Others, including the Commercial and Chancery Bar Associations, the City, the Judiciary, The Law Society and many other experts in the legal services sector, have also been drawing attention to what is at stake and coming up with some constructive suggestions as to the way forward, given the potential impact on our standing upon exit from the Union.
What is our current standing? There are only so many statistics that you can digest at once, but try these. The legal services sector adds more than £25bn gross value to the UK’s economy each year, almost three times the size of the German legal sector and six times bigger than that of France. The UK accounts for 10% of global legal services fee revenue. 27% of the world’s 320 legal jurisdictions are founded on our common law. The law of England and Wales governs 40% of global disputes involving arbitrations. Two-thirds of nearly 1,100 claims issued in the UK Commercial Court in 2015 involved at least one party whose address was outside England and Wales.
There is quite a lot at stake, and many competitors, not just in the EU-27 but in rival jurisdictions hoping to oust the UK as the leader in the field of dispute resolution, are, metaphorically, rubbing their hands.
What can we do? We can and should retain a certain amount of confidence that the quality of what we provide, our incorruptible and independent judiciary, our world-class professional services, and our linguistic, geographical, and geo-political advantages, outstrip what our competitors can offer.
But to be complacent is foolish, given the scale of the change that exiting the EU will trigger. Last month Lord Neuberger suggested that ‘Brexit is operating as a spur to encourage all involved in the provision of legal services in London to strive to ensure that those services are even better than they already are.’ Of course competition acts as a spur, but competitors need, as they say, a level playing field. There is little reason think that the EU-27 will feel the need to provide one, absent mutual benefit.
So the times are uncertain and as everyone knows, uncertainty is bad for business. Is there anything the government can do now, to reduce it?
Our outgoing Lord Chief Justice characteristically took up the cudgels in his recent Mansion House speech and warned that ‘… the common good urgently requires clarification of a number of issues in relation to Brexit. First, on applicable law, certainty is needed. It can be secured through the incorporation of the provisions of Rome I and II into English law… Second, choice of jurisdiction clauses should be respected. There is the strongest case that this should be supported through the United Kingdom acceding as a contracting State to The Hague Convention on Choice of Court Agreements. Third, it is essential for the UK that we work with the EU to ensure that there is a simple and flexible regime for the mutual recognition of enforcement of judgments for the future.
‘Many months have elapsed since these points were made clear by the judiciary and the legal profession to Her Majesty’s Government. There is no reason for further delay.’
So, as the Bar has repeatedly advised the government, there are a number of things it can and should do, not for the sake of lawyers but for the sake of the country. If legal services are worth something to the country, following some legal advice may be a smart thing to do.
What about lawyers and our clients? Do we matter in all this? What would ‘No Deal’ mean? Brexit and the Legal Services Sector, a recent publication to which the Bar Council contributed, spelt it out. Here is a taster:
‘No Deal’ does not look too clever when it comes to the current pre-eminence of the UK’s legal services sector. The sector does not operate in a silo. For example it underpins our financial services sector, which in turn generates a very large proportion of GDP.
So what is the overview? The goose that lays the golden egg is our international reputation for the delivery of justice. It is not merely the judges, but also the lawyers who appear before them, who advise and represent clients at home and abroad, with exceptional skill and dedication, who have built up that reputation over time. As we all know a reputation painstakingly built can be swiftly lost. It is time for those who hold our reputation in their hands to concentrate on what is at stake and to take meaningful steps to reassure. Now.
‘No Deal’ is looking ‘No Good’ for lawyers and their clients. Rival jurisdictions are jostling for position. It’s high time the government heeded repeated legal advice, argues Bar Chair
The Bar Council adopted a neutral position during last year’s EU referendum campaign, although in the public interest and in order to try to inform debate we published succinct and accessible papers on the legal consequences of exiting the EU.
The Chair of the Bar sets out how the new government can restore the justice system
In the first of a new series, Louise Crush of Westgate Wealth considers the fundamental need for financial protection
Unlocking your aged debt to fund your tax in one easy step. By Philip N Bristow
Possibly, but many barristers are glad he did…
Mental health charity Mind BWW has received a £500 donation from drug, alcohol and DNA testing laboratory, AlphaBiolabs as part of its Giving Back campaign
The Institute of Neurotechnology & Law is thrilled to announce its inaugural essay competition
How to navigate open source evidence in an era of deepfakes. By Professor Yvonne McDermott Rees and Professor Alexa Koenig
Brie Stevens-Hoare KC and Lyndsey de Mestre KC take a look at the difficulties women encounter during the menopause, and offer some practical tips for individuals and chambers to make things easier
Sir Geoffrey Vos, Master of the Rolls and Head of Civil Justice since January 2021, is well known for his passion for access to justice and all things digital. Perhaps less widely known is the driven personality and wanderlust that lies behind this, as Anthony Inglese CB discovers
The Chair of the Bar sets out how the new government can restore the justice system
No-one should have to live in sub-standard accommodation, says Antony Hodari Solicitors. We are tackling the problem of bad housing with a two-pronged approach and act on behalf of tenants in both the civil and criminal courts