The north’s finest were out in force last week for the second-ever Legal 500 Northern Powerhouse Awards.
This year the awards were held in Leeds – handily timed to co-ordinate with the city being named the best place to live in the north.
Future Lawyers firms DLA Piper, Addleshaw Goddard and CMS scooped up reams of well-deserved awards. You can see the full list of winners, along with photos of the night here.
Congratulations to all the winners, and thanks to sponsors Deminor Litigation Funding. After Manchester last year, there was much discussion on the night about where next year’s event should be held. Let us know what you think!
In the latest instalment of the Future Lawyers blog, Katie O’Brien, law and Spanish student at the University of Strathclyde looks into PFAS and how we can reduce their impact on the environment.
Per-and polyfluoroalkyl substances, otherwise known as PFAS, are a group of synthetic, man-made chemicals. Their prominence in manufacturing stems from their non-stick properties resisting heat, oil, stains, and grease.
Although used largely in the aviation industry, the creation of the non-stick pan and marketisation of ‘Teflon,’ a form of PFA, invited these harsh and unnatural chemicals into the domestic environment. Hence now they have become a ubiquitous part of modern life. From food packaging, pharmaceuticals, cosmetics, paints, school uniforms, toilet paper, teabags, and period products. PFAS are everywhere. But how bad are they really?
PFAS are often referred to as “forever chemicals” as they take years to break down due to their extremely strong chemical bond. This has resulted in elevated levels of PFA contamination in our environment and wildlife, from fish in our local rivers to polar bears hunting in the far north of the Artic Sea.
Levels of PFAS have now been detected in our drinking water. Expertise from the Manchester Met featured in a report from the Royal Society of Chemistry (RSC) on PFAS chemicals. The report reveals than a third of water courses tested in England and Wales contain forever chemicals. Our level of exposure to these chemicals is so great that it is estimated 97% of the global population contain traces of PFAS in our bodies.
Even small doses of the forever chemicals have been linked to cancer, thyroid disease, kidney disease, as well as reproductive and immune system harm. In a study published by The Lancet Planetary Health, the University of Aberdeen and Örebro University used extensive metabolic profiling of 78 foetuses to demonstrate that the existence of PFAS in everyday products can even increase the risk of disease in unborn children.
Professor Paul Fowler, Chair in Translational Medicine at the University of Aberdeen, states, “We found PFAS in the livers of the foetuses, and unfortunately, the results provide strong evidence that exposure to these forever chemicals in the womb affects the unborn child.” The extensive health risks and impact on our wildlife and ecosystems is what makes PFAS extremely dangerous or as referred to by Richard Benwell, CEO of Wildlife and Countryside Link, “a toxic timebomb”.
Although consumer desires for more transparent practices within companies is growing and the commercial market faces more challenges to ensure they are operating sustainably, there is currently no statutory requirement restricting the level of PFAS in drinking water in England and Wales.
The EU has proposed tighter restrictions of the use of the chemical through EU REACH (the EU regulation on the registration, evaluation, authorisation, and restriction of chemicals) which could lead to a ban of over 10,000 PFAS. This has the potential to fundamentally change the materials used in thousands of products and prevent further damage to the environment and our health.
However, in a post-Brexit landscape, certain chemical protections are at risk of being weakened through the retained EU Law Bill process, which currently gives the government the power to amend or revoke key pieces of chemical legislation. The UK now operates under its own REACH programme in which only two forms of PFAS are restricted.
The regulation of PFAS is as much a business issue as it is an issue of insufficient policy. Companies must be forced to take greater accountability for their practices. The majority of products containing PFAS can be manufactured using more sustainable materials and have no legitimate claim requiring the use of PFAS.
S.172 of the Companies Act 2006 hints at a company director’s duty of corporate social responsibility. It states a company must have regard to ‘the impact of the company’s operations on the community and the environment’. However, as seen by the distinct lack of action regarding the use of toxic chemicals, in practice this legislation is so subjective it fails to truly regulate corporations to the necessary level.
An investigation conducted by non-profit environmental organisation ChemSec, into the twelve biggest PFAS producers shows “PFAS” is rarely mentioned in the company reports. In fact, seven out of twelve companies do not mention it all. In comparison, the word ‘sustainability’ is collectively mentioned 1,913 times by the companies in the reports.
Without the right understanding of the dangers of PFAS or the ability to recognise their use, corporations can continually capitalise from consumer compliance, largely without legal intervention. The study itself shows the corporate profits from the production of PFAS are minimal compared to the global societal costs – health and remediation – of PFA chemicals, which amount to £13 trillion per year.
Enhancing public awareness of the dangers of PFAS is a necessary step towards greater consumer empowerment and allows us to call for significant government and corporate accountability. However, the harsh reality is that given their almost indestructible nature, once these chemicals are in the environment and our bodies, there is no way to remove them.
Therefore, it is vital we place a greater focus on implementing stricter regulation and standards upon toxic chemical use. Adopting a clear framework of social responsibility should not be a choice amongst the biggest corporations and polluters, but a necessity.
Despite having the common goal of qualifying as a solicitor, everyone will have slightly different priorities when choosing where to do their training contract.
Whether your aim is to get as much client contact as possible, work on headline-making deals or earn a sky-high salary, it’s important to find out exactly what each firm has to offer before you apply.
In this blog we set out some of the most important considerations when choosing a law firm:
Practice area
One of the first and most important things to consider is whether the firm actually has a department or team practising the area of law you’re most interested in.
A firm can win countless awards and be making headlines daily, but if it doesn’t have a property department and you want to be a property lawyer, it’s probably not for you.
Equally, if you’re interested in a niche area of finance or corporate law, you will need to check first that the firm practises that particular type of law.
Some law students and prospective trainees will know from the outset that they want to be a corporate or finance lawyer and may set their sights on the City, international or US firms. These firms often have plenty of advertising and marketing materials available and are relatively easy to find.
Other prospective trainees will know that they want to be a family or employment lawyer, or even an art or sports lawyer. A bit more research might be needed to find firms which specialise in these areas.
Whichever area of law you think you’ll want to qualify into, it’s best to go into your training contract with an open mind.
Law in practice can be very different to what you study at law school. It’s definitely worth waiting to see which area of law you actually enjoy working in day to day before you make your final decision.
Consult The Legal 500 to see which firms practice in your preferred areas of law.
Inclusiveness
It’s no good if a law firm is a specialist in its field if it isn’t inclusive. You will want to be confident that you can bring your whole self to work, regardless of socioeconomic background, ethnicity, sexuality or just your personality.
Despite the legal industry having a bit of a fusty reputation, most law firms have made inroads and now have much more diverse and inclusive workforces than in previous decades.
Many firms also have plenty of diversity initiatives in place – whether it’s a LGBTQ+ networking group or a parent lawyer society.
If you’re wondering how you’ll fit in at a firm, consult our inclusiveness winners table to see which firms came up trumps in this arena.
Approachability
The key to a successful training contract is often the supervision. And that supervision needs to come from someone who is approachable.
Supervisors can be senior associates, partners or any solicitor who is qualified and more senior than you, but a good supervisor should be getting you involved in their work, answering questions and giving you regular feedback so that you can improve.
Look out for firms that have an ‘open-door policy’, which means that you can freely knock on a senior lawyer’s door to ask a question, no matter how silly it may seem!
Client contact
Dealing with clients is a huge part of being a solicitor. During your training, you will learn how to manage and communicate with clients. This might be through observing your supervisor or by meeting with clients directly.
Bear in mind that at larger firms, it’s unlikely you’ll be having high levels of contact with clients in your junior years. This is because big firms tend to have big clients, and the deals they’re involved in can be complex. Client contact at these firms will be largely reserved for partners and senior lawyers.
At mid-sized and smaller firms you are much more likely to be put in front of a client early on. This could include drafting emails, calling a client or even attending client meetings, with (or sometimes even without) your supervisor.
Compare how trainees rated their firms for client contact here.
Salary
There’s no getting away from the fact that how much you get paid might influence where you want to work.
Some US and City law firms pay eye-wateringly high salaries which are sure to grab your attention as you browse their websites and brochures. It goes without saying that you’ll be required to work very hard in return for these competitive packages. Still, it’s nice to know that your hard graft is valued.
Always consider the NQ salary when making your decision. NQ salaries are often significantly higher than trainee salaries and if you’re hoping to stay on at the firm post qualification, this is the amount you can expect to be paid longer term.
Smaller firms will not pay as much as their City counterparts. The trade-off however is probably (though not always!) a much better work/life balance and earlier responsibility.
Salary is a very important thing to consider when choosing where to apply. No amount of money will make up for you feeling unhappy when you’re working day and night, but feeling like your hard work is not adequately compensated can feel equally frustrating.
Consult our salary winners table to find out how much you can expect to get paid at each firm.
Work/Life balance
Yes it’s fulfilling, but law can be an intense career path. Tales of missing out on birthdays, dinners and even holidays because of work deadlines are not uncommon and, although perhaps more frequent at larger firms, lawyers at all types of firms will likely encounter late nights at one point or another.
Some law firms have a better track record of promoting a healthy work/life balance than others. Year on year we are told by trainees at certain firms that their colleagues respect that they have a life outside of work. If this is high on your agenda, have a look at our work/life balance table.
Work/life balance is something that is likely to greatly impact your training experience and is not something to take lightly.
Social life
OK, so social life may not be your top priority when choosing a law firm. But in reality it’s good to know that your colleagues are going to be a sociable bunch who enjoy a drink at the pub or a game of football on a Thursday evening.
As a law graduate, the first step in your career is a vital one. It’s important to get broad experience, acquire a good understanding of the law and appreciate the commercial side of the business. Only then can you decide which area to specialise in.
As a trainee at Cripps you’ll experience different practice areas covering all aspects of commercial property, corporate and commercial law as well as private client matters. You’ll carry out challenging and interesting work for a wide range of clients from blue chip household names and entrepreneurial businesses to high net worth private clients. You’ll also be supported throughout your contract, and encouraged to express your opinions and be yourself.
The recruitment window is now open and will close on 29 February 2024. Apply using the link below.
Marie Johansen Nordland talks to leading London lawyers about patent trends in the life sciences sector.
Buzz about blockbuster drug developments, expiring patents and the launch of the European Union’s Unified Patent Court – 2023 certainly kept the life sciences sector on its toes.
Against a backdrop of several of the world’s best-selling drugs nearing their patent expiration dates and the market getting to grips with the implications of the long-awaited EU patent court, leading practitioners at UK law firms provide their perspective on the evolving world of IP and patent litigation in the life sciences sector – and what these changes mean for corporates and their in-house legal teams.
A biologics patent cliff?
‘Patent litigation is as busy as it’s always been,’ says Clare Tunstall, head of the IP and life sciences department at Pinsent Masons. ‘There are more blockbuster patents going off patents in the next five years than there have been in the last five. The ones that are now coming off are the top five or six, all at the same time – some big biologics. We’re going to see a lot of intense patent litigation,’ she adds.
‘The patent cliff for biologics is happening, and it’s happening now,’ echoes her fellow Pinsents partner Christopher Sharp.
Stephen Bennett, partner at Hogan Lovells, agrees that there is a lot of litigation in the pipeline on big drugs right now but is less convinced that there’s a patent cliff. ‘We’ve certainly had this before, where people have reported what they call a patent cliff, where it’s just so happened that a group of products that have become big had similar expiry dates on their key patents.’
More generally partners say clients are increasingly happy to litigate. ‘Clients are more willing to challenge patents now than perhaps historically would have been the case,’ says Tunstall. ‘When I started, it was unheard of for an innovator to go up against another innovator, but now you have to – this is a trend that’s been going on for a while, but we’ll continue to see an increase in this,’ she adds.
‘We have clients coming in wanting to challenge and enforce patents as part of their business model, rather than as a last resort.’ Christopher Sharp, Pinsent Masons
‘Clients are less afraid of litigation’, agrees Sharp. ‘We have clients coming in wanting to challenge and enforce patents as part of their business model, rather than as a last resort.’
Significantly, this increase in patent litigation isn’t just happening at the point of patent expiry but is also now happening throughout the full life cycle of drug discovery. As Bennett notes: ‘What we’ve had more of lately is litigation before product launch. New entrants in the market and existing players bringing new products see that there are issues with the patents of other innovators, and to remedy the issue, they want to sort the patent picture out pre-launch. We have seen an uptick in that. It’s a different sort of litigation, and it’s quite exciting for us because normally we’re litigating things that have been on the market for 10-15 years,’ he says.
The biosimilar boom
Another trend pointed out by partners is how drug and technology developments are changing client approaches to legal advice. ‘I think today’s blockbusters have pretty much gone – is anyone going to find a new Lipitor or a new Viagra? I don’t think so,’ argues Sally Shorthose, joint head of the international life sciences regulatory group at Bird & Bird. Instead, the market is moving towards more advanced, specialised therapies, such as gene editing technology CRISPR, personalised cancer treatments, antibody therapies, and, notably, biosimilars. ‘We’re finally seeing the boom of biosimilars now (…) For ten years it was something like one a year, now there’s several in the UK currently running,’ says Sharp.
The shift from traditional biologics to biosimilars means a change in approach for in-house legal teams and innovators. Bennett emphasises that there are different regulatory regimes for different classes of drugs, as well as different systems for reimbursements for such products, which patent lawyers and in-house teams need to consider.
‘Patent lawyers have to think about a whole new regulatory area. If you’re litigating the patents, all of that is relevant. And so what we’re seeing is that coming more to the fore, in the consideration of patent lawyers, they’re having to assimilate.’
The changes also mean in-house legal teams need to adjust their approaches and strategies. While the biological compounds used in the manufacture of biologics are relatively easy to produce in a lab, the production of antibody therapies and biosimilars is different. Likewise, technological advances such as CRISPR and the advent of AI bring further new challenges.
RelatedSponsored thought leadership: China life sciences – Transaction insights and notable industry trends
‘It’s a different sort of litigation, and it’s quite exciting for us because normally we’re litigating things that have been on the market for 10-15 years.’ Stephen Bennett, Hogan Lovells
Inga-Marlene Pietsch, an IP special counsel at Covington in London, points out that these new therapies require a manufacturing process so highly specialised that a company seeking to protect its product will have to look to other parts of IP law to do so. ‘Traditional innovators are more familiar with patents at the patent protection stage, but in-house teams will need to get familiar with other rights such as copyright and trade secrets,’ Pietsch warns. ‘There’s an increasing crossover between life sciences and technology; needs are changing in terms of more general and broader advice being required. Clients have more questions related to trade secrets as well as general questions around protectability, as opposed to what we’ve observed previously.’
To address this, private practice lawyers highlight the growing importance of cross-departmental collaboration, with technology teams and regulatory practices. ‘Clients need the combined skills,’ says Jane Summerfield, co-head of Hogan Lovells’ life sciences and health care industry group and life sciences regulatory and commercial practice head in London. ‘We’re working more with our colleagues who work with clients in the early stages,’ echoes Bennett, ‘and with our regulatory teams, particularly in the US and the EU.’
The New World of the UPC
Another key driver of activity is the new EU Unified Patent Court. The court, which started operating in June 2023 after a long wait, has exclusive competence in respect of European patents and patent applications across its contracting member states. The UK, originally a signatory to the 2013 UPC Agreement, formally withdrew its ratification of the treaty in July 2020, leaving UK corporates and their in-house legal teams uncertain of their place in (or outside) the new regime.
‘We’re seeing more activity from the life sciences in the UPC than was originally anticipated,’ says Tunstall, adding that ‘no discussion around strategy is safe without discussion of your UPC strategy.’
‘Lots of patentees opted out in the beginning, but so far all the decisions have appeared very patentee friendly,’ notes Pietsch, adding that ‘the UPC could be a serious forum for patentees to seek patent enforcement if it keeps developing as it has been doing so far.’
According to Tunstall, the UPC means corporates and their in-house teams to be aware of the relative pros and cons of individual jurisdictions. ‘Clients see the UPC as a jurisdiction – a very important jurisdiction, yes, but another layer on the onion,’ she says. What clients want to know, she continues, is ‘how do you blend these different fora to achieve your strategic goal? How will clients use the UPC strategically to influence? A strategic use of fora, especially in the high-value actions that are going to come through regarding biologics, is going to be key.’
‘The UK still benefits from being a relatively fast jurisdiction, an influencer jurisdiction. It’s a super interesting time.’ Clare Tunstall, Pinsent Masons
Despite Brexit and the UK’s withdrawal, from the UPC partners argue that the UK is in a strong position. ‘The UK still benefits from being a relatively fast jurisdiction, an influencer jurisdiction. It’s a super interesting time,’ says Tunstall. ‘From a life sciences point of view, the UK is still one of the most valuable markets in Europe,’ agrees Sharp. Bennett echoes this, noting that ‘the UK has been a key market for litigation (…) because clients can have certainty sooner than elsewhere in Europe. It’s a speedier market.’
Overall, partners maintain that this is a time of opportunity for UK corporates. ‘Looking forward to the UK as an IP regime, we’re confident that it will still have a presence. We have 60-odd million people – that’s 60-odd million patient consumers,’ says Shorthose. ‘You’d be a brave innovator to ignore the UK as a place to patent your product.’
The combination of emerging technologies, including AI, CRISPR, and biosimilars, and the opportunities and insecurities brought by the UPC means that the current world of IP and patent litigation in the life sciences space is one of opportunity for lawyers too. As Sharp concludes: ‘it’s a moment to potentially influence jurisprudence across major markets that will define the space for many years to come.’
Leading life sciences partners size up recent regulatory reforms and assess the UK’s position in a post-Brexit, post-Covid world.
After years of delays caused by geopolitical instability and the Covid-19 pandemic, the new regulatory landscape for the life sciences industry is beginning to take shape in both the UK and the EU.
As the UK pushes ahead with its post-Brexit journey of divergence, establishing itself as an innovation-friendly environment in the global life sciences market has become of paramount importance. In contrast, the EU’s attempts to draft comprehensive laws on AI have attracted criticism from the medical devices industry, prompting overburdened innovators to turn to more investment-friendly locations.
‘It’s all about trying to allow innovation into the market, but at the same time protecting public health.’ Michael Gavey, Simmons & Simmons
Meanwhile, the new EU pharmaceutical package, which was intended to help harmonise legislation across member states, has cast a shadow of uncertainty over the industry. Here, leading life sciences partners offer their verdict on the current state of the market, and the UK’s position within it.
Brexit and beyond
The UK left the EU before the adoption of new European legislation around medical devices and pharmaceutical products. But with international collaboration and idea-sharing commonplace across the global life sciences industry, partners working in the sector have mixed views on the impact the exit will have in the longer term.
‘What I can’t use my crystal ball for is to see how the UK will carry on beyond Brexit’ notes Sally Shorthose, co-head of the life sciences and healthcare practice at Bird & Bird. ‘The impact on the UK market could go one of two ways,’ she observes. ‘We could be pushed out because we’re not interesting enough, or it could be that we’re used as a test market because we’re still subject to the earlier regime’.
Covington & Burling life sciences partner Robin Blaney adds: ‘Companies are finally waking up to the fact that there is already divergence now, and that divergence is only going to get bigger’.
While Shorthose believes that the UK is still seen as a significant market, she notes that there may be problems further down the line – for example, that the UK’s decision not to adopt European clinical trials regulations ‘could mean that the UK, and certainly Great Britain, gets left out of new clinical trial initiatives’.
Brexit has also had an impact on the availability of scientific talent in the UK, with immigration changes meaning that it is no longer as straightforward for clinicians, scientists, or researchers to come into the UK anymore.
The UK joined the EU’s funding programme for research and innovation, Horizon Europe in December 2023 and Shorthose is hopeful that, despite Brexit, in time there may be ‘more collaboration and less deviation for the sake of deviating’.
‘While the EU has gone for this big, cross-sector, horizontal piece of legislation in the form of the AI Act, the UK has rejected that approach.’ Jaspreet Takhar, Baker McKenzie
Blaney is similarly confident that the UK Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency (MHRA) will opt to ‘cherry-pick pieces of legislation to implement’ from the new EU pharma legislation, rather than going completely its own direction.
Michael Gavey, who leads the UK healthcare and life sciences team at Simmons & Simmons, predicts that while post-Brexit, the UK wants to be seen to be forging its own political path, there is also an element of ‘wanting others to then follow’.
Regardless of how it plays out in the longer term, Brexit has undeniably had a significant impact on the way life sciences lawyers are working. As Blaney points out: ‘Pre-Brexit, I was largely just advising at an EU level. Now, post-Brexit, I’m back to being a UK lawyer as well as an EU lawyer, and there are differences. We are seeing UK-specific queries in a way that five years ago, we just didn’t receive’.
Circling success
Such queries cover a host of areas, with partners preparing for the introduction of the new Voluntary Scheme for Branded Medicines Pricing, Access and Growth (VPAG) at the start of 2024 after months of tense negotiations. Lawyers in the sector are also predicting an increase in activity as the UK pitches itself as a more innovation-friendly market than the EU.
‘The UK Government has been very clear that they will do what it takes to remain a key player in life sciences’ notes Marie Manley, who leads the London life sciences team at Sidley Austin. She adds that ‘the MHRA has created a new international recognition route for medicines utilising pre-existing approvals by trusted regulatory partners to expedite access to safe and effective medicines’.
Jane Summerfield, who leads the Hogan Lovells life sciences regulatory and commercial practice in London, echoes these sentiments, saying that the international recognition system is a ‘game changing’ approach, similar to that taken by Australia and the Middle East, noting that ‘this is a fundamentally significant change which impacts everything commercially’.
But despite this positive step, Blaney notes that ‘some companies are focusing on the EU as a bigger market, getting approval there first, then coming to the UK as an afterthought’. While some may argue this potentially frees up resources at the MHRA to focus on more innovative applications, there are still risks in terms of the UK’s competitive position.
Medical devices and innovation
In March 2023, the UK Life Sciences Council, which brings together government ministers and industry professionals, formed a new advisory group to provide proposals for reforms to medical device regulations in the UK, with particular emphasis on international recognition, routes for innovation, and system capacity.
While the intention was to create a new post-Brexit regime out of the shadow of the EU, the reality has panned out slightly differently with regards to the UK Conformity Assessed (UKCA) marking framework, the UK’s successor to the EU’s ‘CE’ product marking requirements.
As Gavey explains: ‘The idea is to overhaul the medical device regulation, but many of the proposals that have been put forward are there to align with the EU’.
‘Big Pharma would say the new EU pharma package is quite pro-patient but not particularly pro-industry.’ Sally Shorthose, Bird & Bird
Covington partner Sarah Cowlishaw describes the UK move as a ‘full circle approach’, noting that the MHRA is engaged in talks about ‘not moving to a mandatory UKCA mark for medical devices, but rather continuing to recognise the [European] CE mark’. The EU is being equally collaborative, with Cowlishaw pointing out that the EU ‘don’t want to stop companies coming to the UK at all – they want to make sure that we still have access to the market’.
But while the UK and EU are collaborating, there are distinct differences in approach. For example, the UK’s approach to regulating software as a medical device is more open and less rigid, and the EU’s proposed AI Act has thrown yet more spanners into the works.
Baker McKenzie healthcare tech regulatory associate Jaspreet Takhar says: ‘While the EU has gone for this big, cross-sector, horizontal piece of legislation in the form of the AI Act, the UK has rejected that approach’. Gavey agrees, speculating that the UK position is ‘probably more likely to be in guidance than hard law’, which may lead to questions around the practical aspects of compliance.
According to Takhar, the UK is asking existing regulators to issue guidance about specific risks as part of its bid to make the UK more innovation-friendly for AI developers. She points out that some positive impact from the move can already be seen: ‘AI developers are sometimes choosing to launch products in jurisdictions like the UK before they do so in the EU, so it does seem to be working’.
However, Takhar warns that it is not a risk-free approach, noting that ‘by not regulating risk at all, the UK is leaving quite big gaps in regulation, which could be exploited, and not in a positive way’.
RelatedSponsored thought leadership: China life sciences – Transaction insights and notable industry trends
Gavey adds that ‘it’s all about trying to allow innovation into the market, but at the same time, protecting public health’.
Striking fear in clients
If the UK is taking a relaxed stance to regulation as it battles to stay relevant after leaving the EU, the same is not true of its former stablemates. Having come into force in the summer of 2021 after being beset with delays, the EU Medical Device Regulation (MDR) places restrictions on substances within the production and design of medical devices, imposing labelling requirements and precautionary measures; while the In Vitro Diagnostic Regulation (IVDR), which came into force in May 2022, aims to impose increased regulatory requirements on manufacturers in terms of device traceability, and clinical evidence and post-market performance, in addition to introducing a new classification system. Both the IVDR and MDR also introduced conformity assessment bodies, known as notified bodies.
Meanwhile, in April 2021, the European Commission took a step into the unknown and proposed the AI Act, which aims to ensure that AI systems used within the EU are regulated using a risk-based approach, in which differing levels of perceived risk create different obligations for both providers and users.
Aggravated by both the Covid-19 pandemic and the war in Ukraine, the addition of stricter regulatory obligations under the IVDR and the MDR, and the lack of authorised notified bodies, has created issues around certification. As a result, in January 2023 the European Commission (EC) proposed an extension under which compliant devices under the old regime can still be placed on the market.
With concerns about innovation being stifled echoing throughout the industry, lawyers in both EU and non-EU member states are concerned that all of these disparate regulations will impose uncoordinated obligations on life sciences companies seeking to access the European market.
Simmons healthcare and life sciences co-head Annabelle Bruyndonckx notes that ‘almost all manufacturers have revised their portfolios of both IVDs and medical devices’. She emphasises the difficulties that clients face as a result of the inconsistent approach of notified bodies across Europe in terms of classification, particularly in relation to software as a medical device.
Takhar, meanwhile, notes that the practice has ‘seen some clients pause or delay EU launches because of the perceived regulatory environment in the EU, whilst going ahead more quickly with jurisdictions which are perceived to be more AI-friendly, like the UK and the US’.
When it comes to the AI Act in particular, Takhar comments on the difficulties clients face ‘entering a space where the regulatory landscape is shifting under their feet’, investing heavily in compliance just to stay afloat amidst the myriad of legislative developments or risk heavy penalties for breaching compliance obligations.
Takhar warns that the potential penalties for breaching new legislation are ‘putting the fear of God in clients’. Expanding on the perceived regulatory burden of having to comply with both the AI Act and the MDR, Takhar explains, ‘if you are a manufacturer of AI as a medical device, the good news is that the EU is aware that you need to comply with two massive legal regimes in the form of the EU Medical Device Regulation and EU AI Act’. But, if something goes wrong with your AI as a medical device, companies will ‘potentially need to liaise with two unconnected regulators, and it’s not clear how much those two regulators are talking to each other’.
According to Takhar, ‘the MDR was designed in a world that wasn’t ready for AI, and not even ready for software’. She argues that it is therefore ‘quite inflexible when it comes to change control requirements, which is at odds with the AI world, where models are constantly evolving’.
New ideas, new rules
In an attempt to overhaul pharma legislation across the EU, the proposed new EU pharma package seeks to readdress the balance between supporting EU citizens in their access to medicines, while also making the EU an attractive investment space for the global pharmaceutical industry.
The proposals have met with tidal waves of criticism. Concerns raised include:
that safety standards may be sacrificed in exchange for quicker market authorisation processes;
that companies may fail to meet proposed targets relating to bringing products to market; and
the lack of guaranteed availability of new antibiotics.
These concerns have, in the eyes of some partners, snowballed into broader fears that the EU is becoming less innovation friendly.
‘I thought it was supposed to make things easier!’ laughs Blaney, reflecting on the feeling that the proposals, particularly around regulatory data exclusivity, are far more complex than initially intended. Acknowledging the irony given that the package was intended to stimulate innovation, Manley comments: ‘Unfortunately, it is likely to have a detrimental effect on the patient population in the EU – this is very likely to affect the level of investments in the EU’.
‘It is unclear where and when the EU pharma package will ultimately land.’
Els Janssens, Baker McKenzie
Baker McKenzie corporate healthcare partner Phelim O’Doherty notes that pharma companies are thinking ahead and weighing up the costs of dealing with increased regulatory burdens in the EU or going elsewhere, and his colleague at Bakers, Julia Gillert, argues that ‘at this stage, companies could aim to avoid delays and launch products as soon as possible.’
Partners also point to the additional complexity and lack of certainty during development as particular sticking points in the plans.
The package is intended to balance patient interests and innovation, but partners are divided about who it favours. Shorthose notes that ‘big pharma would say that perhaps it’s quite pro-patient but not particularly pro industry’.
The controversy surrounding the proposals prompts Bakers’ Brussels based counsel Els Janssens to stress that: ‘it is still early days in the legislative process and the topic is highly sensitive, it is unclear where and when the EU pharma package will ultimately land – it is already clear that there are opposing views on the topic within the European Parliament and the Council’.
She offers a word of warning for clients, saying ‘companies will need to focus on building and maintaining robust, sustainable and transparent supply chains’ and factor that into their planning around the proposals.
The optimistic outlook
While all of the upheaval at both UK and EU level bring considerable challenges, partners are broadly optimistic. With change comes opportunity, with the avalanche of regulatory change triggering an increase in work for partners. There will also be a need for in-house teams to develop their skillset and broaden their breadth of expertise to deal with the novel issues in their in-trays.
The rapid adoption of AI and new technology in medical devices and digital health means clients are changing – and so is the advice they seek. As Takhar comments: ‘the healthcare and life sciences players already know the healthcare regulatory framework really well, but the data side of AI feels newer to them; the tech and startup players are more familiar with the tech world and less familiar with the healthcare regulatory world. All of these players have different blind spots.’
Herbert Smith Freehills London IP partner Jonathan Turnbull concludes: ‘2024 will be interesting. The courts will grapple with protections for platform technologies and AI, and the government and MHRA will grapple with modernising the regulatory pathway. Combined, this could influence the attractiveness of the UK and its ability to become a global hub for life sciences.’
Magic Circle, international, US, regional or boutique? Being a lawyer is a completely different experience depending on the type of firm you work at.
The life of a corporate lawyer at Clifford Chance bears little resemblance to the life of a family practitioner at Farrer & Co, which in turn is nothing like the day-to-day business of an insurance litigation lawyer at RPC or a personal injury solicitor at Irwin Mitchell.
Just as the work is different, so too are the people. And the firms themselves, while sharing the common goal of business success, also vary in style and outlook. We aim to give you a thumbnail sketch of the various types of firm available to you as you look for a training contract.
Readers should be aware that we are generalising to a certain extent, and you should always investigate each firm as much as you can to get a sense of individual flavour and personality.
Always check individual firms for trainee numbers and salary details. Although we have, of course, done some of the legwork for you – see the individual firm profiles.
MAGIC CIRCLE
These are the five largest and most profitable corporate law firms in London, comprising Clifford Chance, Allen & Overy, Freshfields Bruckhaus Deringer, Linklaters and Slaughter and May.
These are huge firms with hundreds of partners and annual UK trainee intakes of between 85 and 120 candidates.
They advise the world’s leading companies and banks on their most challenging deals and transactions. They have sleek, impressive offices with fantastic facilities and they offer thorough training, international travel and exposure to major clients and deals.
However, they are also known for long hours and high stress levels, and they tend to offer less client contact and ‘real’ work than smaller firms. To make up for this, the salary and bonuses are at the top end of the scale.
If you see yourself as a high-flying corporate or finance lawyer, juggling big deals and huge sums of money, and are prepared to put in the hours, then these are the firms for you.
Work still has a definite corporate/commercial focus, clients are household names and deals are big.
Trainee numbers are generally smaller, but you’ll still be part of a large group, with perhaps an intake of around 60 trainees each year.
The hours and stress levels might not be on a par with the Magic Circle firms, but the pay might not be quite as high either.
A training contract at this type of firm can offer many of the rewards of City training, with sometimes slightly less of a stressful, hothouse environment.
US FIRMS
Training contracts at US firms in London appear to present an enticing combination of high salaries and large corporate deals, with plenty of hands-on experience and a smaller, more manageable number of trainees (typically between five and 15).
Firms such as Cleary Gottlieb Steen & Hamilton, Covington & Burling, , Kirkland & Ellis, and Sidley Austin are all praised for thorough training in an environment where there is no room to hide, but plenty of space to shine. On the downside, hours can be long, with eye watering billable targets and stress levels to match.
LARGE NATIONAL/REGIONAL FIRMS
Another group of commercial firms, handling high-quality work and offering anywhere between 12 and 50 trainee places each year.
You should be offered a good spread of work at firms like these, and the bias will still be corporate/commercial, with decent litigation and property practices too.
These firms are among the highest payers outside London, and offer an excellent alternative to the City.
MID-SIZED FIRMS
This group covers a variety of firms with a number of specialist areas.
Typically there will be between 15 and 40 trainees, allowing room to shine but providing you with plenty of ready-made friends. There is often more one-to-one supervision from partners and more client contact.
SMALLER LONDON FIRMS
The smaller London firms can provide an excellent training environment, with early responsibility, hands-on work and often your own caseload.
You will get exposure to the main areas of corporate, property and litigation, but should also get to experience some of the niche practice areas in which these smaller firms excel.
One main downside to these firms can be the slightly higher levels of uncertainty over retention rates, so check out recent stats. Firms falling into this category generally have between ten and 20 trainees.
Outside London there is a huge range of firms to choose from. Many will be leaders in their fields, with both local and national (sometimes international) clients.
The larger examples will have between ten and 30 trainees and should offer a good balance of structured training, significant work and hands-on experience.
Not to mention pretty decent hours, a short commute (depending on where you choose to live) and a good work/life balance. Some of these firms are based in one city, while others have several locations, for example Hill Dickinson.
SMALLER REGIONAL FIRMS
If the idea of a large, competitive group of trainees makes you want to run a mile, and you’d rather get stuck into real work as soon as possible, then a smaller regional firm will often provide excellent client contact combined with a relaxed working atmosphere and reasonable hours.
Firms such as East Anglia-based Birketts show the positive side of legal training – where it is possible to obtain thorough, hands-on experience in a variety of practice areas without saying goodbye to your social life.
Infrastructure has been one of the hottest London lateral markets in recent years, with US firms snapping up a stream of top talent. But what are the factors driving all this activity?
If there was any doubt remaining that infrastructure is a hot asset right now, BlackRock just eradicated it with its market-moving $12.5bn acquisition of Global Infrastructure Partners (GIP). The combined business will have infrastructure assets under management of more than $150bn worldwide, including London’s Gatwick Airport.
The planned transaction is the latest evidence of the sector’s resilience even against the backdrop of high inflation and interest rates and geopolitical uncertainty that have caused M&A and IPO levels generally to falter in recent years.
Indeed, global infrastructure fundraising peaked at $152bn in 2022, according to a report by consultancy Roland Berger – 24% up on 2021. Energy transition, transport decarbonisation and digitisation mean infrastructure investments are a rapidly growing asset class. Against this backdrop, it is unsurprising that law firms have responded in kind, with the lateral market coming alive as firms gear up to position themselves for this work.
James MacArthur, who himself left Weil in March 2023 to join Sidley as head of European energy, transportation and infrastructure, sets out some of the factors driving this activity. ‘Historically, infrastructure investors focused on brownfield developments for assets such as toll roads, super-sewers, train lines and nuclear power stations, as well as long-term investments in highly regulated industries like utilities. These provided low, long-term, inflation-linked returns,’ he explains.
‘However, in recent years, there’s been an emergence of a new class of private equity infrastructure funds focused on investment in core plus assets across energy, digital, transport and social infrastructure.’
The lateral merry-go-round
MacArthur’s move to Sidley after six years at Weil is just one example of the flurry of big-name moves in the infrastructure market in recent months.
Kirkland & Ellis, which is never far away from the action where lateral recruitment is concerned, has significantly built out its European energy and infrastructure capabilities of late, with hires including Sara Pickersgill and Paul Sampson from Allen & Overy (A&O) and Clifford Chance (CC) duo James Boswell and Toby Parkinson.
Elsewhere, both Paul Hastings and MacArthur’s former home Weil have seen a changing of the guard, with the former enlisting Jessamy Gallagher (pictured in main image) and Stuart Rowson from Linklaters, and the latter recruiting infrastructure transactions partner Brendan Moylan from Latham & Watkins.
At Sidley, London managing partner Tom Thesing says the firm’s decision to bolster its infrastructure offering in London by hiring MacArthur, as well as his former Weil colleague Ed Freeman, was driven by the firm’s US clients increasingly looking towards Europe and Asia, while European funds have also become more active in the US.
‘We saw that Sidley had an opportunity to enhance our global offering and wanted sector-focused people in London,’ Thesing reflects. ‘Thankfully James and Ed came over.’
The exits left Weil with big shoes to fill, with the firm adding Moylan within weeks. Moylan’s own departure from CC to Latham in 2018 had represented an early statement of intent by US firms in London in the infrastructure space, and his move to Weil reunited him with former CC colleague Paul Hibbert, an acquisition and leveraged finance specialist.
‘There’s been an emergence of a new class of private equity infrastructure funds focused on investment in core plus assets across energy, digital, transport and social infrastructure.’ James MacArthur, Sidley
The merry-go-round moves at Weil and Sidley came only months after Kirkland made a splash in London with a series of eye-catching hires. Following infra funds specialist Sampson’s move from A&O in November 2022, his former M&A counterpart Pickersgill joined the following January, while fellow finance/corporate duo Boswell and Parkinson arrived together from CC the same month.
Having advised on private equity and infrastructure transactions his whole career – including a stint at OMERS Infrastructure – Parkinson was attracted to the focus of Kirkland’s offering.
‘Kirkland felt fully established in private equity and private equity real estate in Europe, and therefore infrastructure was a natural extension of what it was doing in Europe already,’ he explains. ‘The firm was already advising a large number of real assets clients on the fund formation side. Paul Sampson joined shortly before us to work with [funds partner] Jonathan Tadd, who led efforts with clients like Copenhagen Infrastructure, Slate, EQT and Antin. Infrastructure M&A and finance were therefore other areas where the firm felt it was important to be able to provide a full service to clients in Europe.’
The sponsor focus of Kirkland was also a big draw for Pickersgill. ‘Everything we do here in the London office is geared towards serving sponsors. Added to that, the fact that we have a US practice of 400 lawyers who focus on delivering energy and infrastructure advice to sponsor clients means that we can bring cutting-edge technology on debt structures, capital structures and equity to the European market.’
And in the same month as Pickersgill made her move to Kirkland, fellow US firm Paul Hastings was also joined by high-profile Linklaters duo Gallagher and Rowson.
As with Pickersgill’s move from A&O, it was partly the strength of Paul Hastings’ offering in the US that helped lure the pair over. Referencing the arrival of infrastructure specialists Gregory Tan and Rob Freedman to Paul Hastings’ New York office from Shearman & Sterling last summer, Gallagher says: ‘We wanted to join a diverse firm with a strong US platform, and the opportunity to work closely with Rob and Greg and replicate in the UK and Europe what they were doing in the US was too exciting to turn down.’
Laying the foundations
While all of these hires have unsurprisingly attracted much press attention, their recent timing means firms are still very much in build mode with UK clients.
But the resilience of the infrastructure market against a backdrop in which mainstream PE has been quieter means partners are confident about future growth.
As Gallagher comments: ‘The buyout market has been quiet for most of last year, but the infrastructure market has remained active in comparison. With the resilience of the asset class, and the dry powder of private capital even in tough fundraising conditions, we’ve seen a continued convergence between private equity and infrastructure. The large asset managers are very interested in infrastructure for the relatively stable return opportunities the asset class provides their investors.’
Rowson adds: ‘Even with headwinds including high inflation and rising interest rates, we expect energy and infrastructure assets to remain attractive to investors, with a particular focus on the energy transition and digital sectors, value add businesses and increasing deployment of private credit.’
Over at Weil, Hibbert is seeing the same trend towards energy transition investments, as well as impact investments that harness new technologies and are carbon neutral. ‘Over the past few years we have seen sponsors looking to raise funds dedicated to sustainable investing, energy transition or impact investing. These funds then deploy capital to invest in assets that demonstrably meet ESG goals, for example by harnessing new technologies to reduce emissions such as green steel. Although there are political headwinds, we expect this trend to continue.’
According to Moylan, this shift in investment priorities is also being driven by limited partners (LPs). He argues that LPs in private equity funds want greater exposure to infrastructure assets and will therefore deploy their capital to whoever can provide the best route. While general partners such as EQT, KKR and Blackstone have been active in infrastructure for many years, others are only now reacting.
‘Our clients have recognised that their investors are keen to deploy capital in the infrastructure sector; in the same way that our clients are responding to the needs of their investors, we’re following our clients into this space,’ says Moylan. ‘By “we,” I mean Weil, but also our peers in the market – if they do not have infrastructure capabilities already, they are looking to build or acquire them.’
The BlackRock/GIP mega deal is one example of the trend for consolidation and investment in the market. The deal has generated roles for a host of firms in the US including Skadden and Fried Frank for BlackRock and Kirkland and Debevoise for GIP but the business’s future investments will no doubt benefit firms worldwide.
Meanwhile CVC’s €1bn acquisition of DIF Capital Partners in 2022 was another significant transaction that highlighted the willingness of private equity and general advisory firms to bolster their infrastructure capabilities through the buyout of sector-focused fund managers.
Pickersgill explains that this deal is part of a notable trend: ‘What’s interesting is what’s happening in the sponsor space, where we’ve seen a few examples of big sponsors launching their infrastructure strategies by effectively buying another fund manager. I think there will be more of the asset manager movement to come, because that’s a great way to launch your strategy, rather than trying to grow it from the ground up.’
According to MacArthur, consolidation in the market is to be expected in the wake of increased client activity and focus: ‘We are starting to see an uptick [of infrastructure activity], with an emphasis in the digital infrastructure and energy transition sectors. I’m sure we’ll see consolidation in fibre, where the bigger players will dominate.’
‘Our clients have recognised that their investors are keen to deploy capital in the infrastructure sector; in the same way that our clients are responding to the needs of their investors, we’re following our clients into this space.’ Brendan Moylan, Weil
Digital infrastructure work has also been a significant part of Paul Hastings’ book of business to date. In addition to Gallagher and Rowson’s arrivals, the firm has also hired several other lawyers as partners, including former Weil associate Candice Lambeth and ex-Latham associate Ally McKechnie, and Lambeth explains that such assets present new challenges to clients: ‘Digital has certainly become a key thematic in infrastructure investing. The rapid pace of technological advancement also brings new risks, challenges and uncertainties not traditionally associated with the infrastructure asset class. A core focus of clients’ investment process is balancing first-mover advantage with the ability to mitigate against risks of a technology becoming obsolete or less relevant in the future.’
The rapid pace of technological advancement is also shaping the way clients engage with conventional infrastructure assets. ‘There is momentum in the digitisation of traditional, “non-digital” infrastructure, whether through the introduction of robotics and automation, smart meter monitoring systems, and use of AI to bring enhanced efficiency to existing systems and operations,’ says McKechnie. ‘We are seeing portfolio companies partner with technology specialists – often in the form of start-ups or growth businesses – to leverage synergies in the broader digital landscape. This creates transformative opportunities within existing infrastructure portfolios.’
What next?
At Kirkland, Pickersgill is unsurprisingly bullish about the team’s prospects for the future: ‘We’re fully up and running and doing deals across all the different energy and infrastructure verticals. We’re always on the lookout for top talent – Sinead O’Shea has also joined us from Simpson Thacher which we’re very excited about, as she has fantastic experience on the infrastructure debt side.’
At Weil, Hibbert points to the groundwork already done to build up the firm’s practice. ‘Six years ago, Weil was one of the first movers in terms of investing in a dedicated infrastructure and energy practice. UK firms had done this for a long time, and US firms were starting to wake up to the idea that this practice is a natural evolution of a business in London that already has excellent private equity, restructuring and financing expertise.’
With this concerted and continuing push by US firms, the focus will now inevitably turn to how UK headquartered firms will react. The London infrastructure market boasts a multitude of top outfits well-positioned to guide clients across an asset’s entire lifespan, but as recent evidence demonstrates, the lure of US firms is often just too great to resist.
Less than five years ago, every single partner in the Legal 500’s Hall of Fame for infrastructure M&A and acquisition financing was at UK firms; while now, five of eight are at US firms. The inevitable question is – who will be next? LB
Timesheets. A necessary evil for the seasoned lawyer and a daunting prospect for a future trainee. You may not have realised it yet but once you’re a solicitor in private practice, you will most probably have to account for all of your time, in six-minute units.
That’s right. That 18-minute phone call to the Land Registry – three units, 24 minutes drafting an email to your client – four units, an hour’s research on the Companies House website – 10 units. For anything in between, you’ll probably be asked to round it up.
In some firms, you might even have targets as a trainee. For example, you might have to record seven hours (70 units) of time in total per day, five hours (50 units) of which will have to be billable to a client.
Whilst the logic behind time-recording is simple – so that accurate bills can be produced for clients – there’s no doubt that it can be a confusing concept to get your head around when you’re starting out in a law firm.
There’ll likely be one code for the client, another for the particular matter you’re working on and a whole host of other codes you could use for the specific task you have been doing, from drafting to travelling to court to attending a client meeting. There may also be non-billable codes for work such as research or internal marketing activities.
To complicate matters, it’ll take you longer than usual to do everything as a fresh-faced trainee. It might take you two hours to draft that long email reply, but can you realistically charge that much to the client when the email only ends up being a couple of paragraphs long?
You’ll have to use your common sense here and decide what you think is a reasonable amount of time to record. Always discuss this with your supervisor in advance to avoid any confusion on billing day.
As a student, you can make the transition easier by being organised with your time now. This could mean planning that extended essay in advance or making a revision timetable for your summer exams. All of these things will help you start being more aware of how you manage your time.
And when you do start your training contract, remember to record your time as you’re going along. Nobody wants to be stuck in the office on the Friday night before the billing deadline racking their brains to remember what they were doing at 3pm on a Tuesday three weeks ago.
Got any questions about time recording? Get in touch.
If you’ve sent off a bunch of applications over the last couple of months, give yourself a pat on the back. If you’re about to start applying (we’re looking at you, barristers), good luck!
As you wait to hear the outcome of any application, it’s common to feel scared that lots of rejections are coming your way.
This blog’s all about dealing with rejection and turning it into something positive, so read on.
To put it bluntly….
Law firms receive anything from a few hundred to a few thousand applications each year for training contracts and vacation schemes.
Some firms will see you as a good match for them, whereas others won’t, which means that you’ll most likely have a few ‘nos’ coming your way. And that’s why you need to get comfortable with the idea of rejection.
Here are some tips to help you cope with vacation scheme rejection and pick yourself back up again.
It’s not personal
As mentioned, all law firms (big and small) get inundated with applications. Whether you’re rejected at application or interview stage, the chances are it’s not because you did anything wrong.
What’s more likely is that there was someone more suited to the role than you. This could be because they had some previous legal experience, or just because they performed particularly well at an assessment centre.
Sometimes it’s just sheer luck, and had you applied in a different year you might have been successful.
The moral of the story is that there are so many different reasons why you might have been rejected, lots of which you can’t control. So don’t take it personally.
Ask for feedback
This is hands down the best way to make your application form or interview technique better going forward.
It’s rare for law firms to give feedback on application forms (because of the volume, as mentioned above), but most will give you feedback after an interview or assessment centre.
Graduate recruitment teams will usually ask everyone involved in the process, from the partner who interviewed you, to the trainee who showed you around at lunchtime, for their comments and observations.
Study the feedback; is there something you can work on? If you have feedback from multiple firms, try and find a common theme. Take time to reflect and work on any pain points. Then use everything you’ve learnt in your next interview.
Bear in mind that current trainees at top law firms only got to where they are now through feedback they got after failed applications and interviews. Don’t forget that.
Take a breather
If the timescale allows, take a break. Instead of jumping straight back into applications whilst you’re still feeling angry, upset or dejected, take some time out.
It’s OK to feel sorry for yourself but don’t let it go on for too long!
Give yourself a day’s break. Put away your laptop and do something nice, like go for a coffee, a walk, or meet up with a friend.
Start afresh the next day; you’ll find that you approach the task in hand with a much more positive mindset.
Lean on friends and family
Don’t keep your feelings to yourself. Speak to friends and family about how you’re feeling. It’s not silly to feel upset about rejection; after all, this is your future career! And a problem shared is a problem halved as they say.
Go one step further and get your network involved in the process – ask them to look over your applications or ask them to do interview practice with you. It’ll make the experience less lonely, and you might get some useful feedback along the way.
Alternatives
Are there any other practical steps you could take to bolster your application?
If you’ve been applying for vacation schemes, training contracts or pupillages for a while but haven’t been successful yet, it might be worth looking at becoming a paralegal, or taking up another administrative role at a law firm.
Working at a law firm in any capacity can be a great way to drum up your experience, not to mention your confidence. You’ll get valuable work experience whilst learning about how a law firm works.
Another plus point is that you can get to know the culture of a firm.
If getting another job isn’t an option for you, you could look into volunteering at your local legal centre or Citizens Advice Bureau.
Work experience, paid or voluntary, looks good on your CV, and demonstrates your commitment to the legal industry.
Do you have any tips you’d like to share for dealing with rejection? Get in touch.
