Posted on

The Silicon Valley Bank Failure

For the past month the name Silicon Valley Bank has been floating in the economic and financial news like the Lehman Brothers’ ghost. The bankruptcy of the favourite bank of start-ups brings back memories of the 2008 crisis that turned the banking sector upside down on a global level.

The Subprime crisis

References to the 2008 crisis can sometimes appear vague when you don’t know the ins and outs of it. What happened at that time?

When buying a house, buyers often take out a bank loan, also known as a mortgage. Property prices can be very high and so the use of financial aids when purchasing property is commonplace. In the United States, as elsewhere, the principle of a mortgage is simple: the borrower has to repay a sum to the bank each month for a fixed period of time. The monthly payment paid by the borrower is supplemented by an interest rate that makes the operation profitable for the banks.

If the payment is not made, it is referred to as a “default”. The risk of default is different depending on the household: those with the least risk, i.e. borrowers who officially have sufficient income to pay the monthly instalments are called “prime”. On the contrary, households or borrowers who are at the highest risk of defaulting are called “subprime”, and often banks are reluctant to lend money to them.

In the early 2000s, the interest rate on bank loans was low due to a cut in rates by the central bank of the United States (the “Fed”). This encouraged households to take out more loans, especially real estate ones, which, according to banks and investors, offered a certain security: if the loan was not repaid, the bank had the right to sell the debtor’s house.

These collaterals quickly attracted the interest of investors who acquired them in the form of securities – virtual assets with a market value – from banks. As demand grew, banks had to find new borrowers and turned to subprime mortgages. Even though the securities acquired from these high default borrowers were not particularly reliable, credit rating agencies were paid to create the illusion that these securities had a high monetary value. At the same time, real estate prices rose rapidly, making the securities more “valuable” and creating a speculative bubble.

This bubble burst when defaults started to accumulate on the subprime side. At first, it was easy to resell the properties, but the subprime defaults got to a point where nearly $600 billions worth of real estate had to be resold and no buyers came forward. Investors stopped buying the securities that the banks were selling, and these banks were faced with many loans that could not be repaid.

In 2008, the collapse of Lehman Brothers bank sounded the death knell for the beginning of the financial crisis. The banking system is highly interconnected, with banks lending money to each other and the crisis had spread around the world. In the United Kingdom, for instance, the Northern Rock bank went bankrupt after a sudden massive withdrawal of money by customers panicked by the turn of events. Short of liquidity, the bank could not keep up with demand.

But then, why is there a connection between this crisis and what recently happened to Silicon Valley Bank?

What happened with Silicon Valley Bank?

Silicon Valley Bank (“SVB”) is a bank specialising in servicing start-ups, financing innovation and tech and is considered the 16th largest US bank with nearly $210 billion in assets at the end of 2022.

In recent years in the United States, the Fed has applied a Covid policy, which lowered credit rates in order to help households and businesses borrow. However, in 2022, after the end of the pandemic, of the rise in inflation and the war in Ukraine, the Fed raised credit rates again. Start-ups turned to SVB to recover their funds and meet their own obligations such as paying their employees’ salaries.

Short of liquidity, the bank had to sell off some of its financial investments at a loss, which alerted tech investors who in turn warned their clients. A banking panic ensued, as in 2008, and a bank run took place on 9 March 2023, resulting in a withdrawal of around 42 billion dollars in less than 24 hours. This caused the bank to fail as it did not have the liquidity to meet the massive customer demand.

To immediately alleviate the problem, the US government officially took control of the bank to reassure people and try to guarantee their deposits.

Conclusion

Although the current situation of SVB is reminiscent of the 2008 crisis given the similarities between both periods, the risk of a new global economic crisis is currently low. The 2008 crisis allowed for the creation of strong regulation, ensuring that banks build up sufficient liquidity in the event of a crisis to be able to meet customer demand. The situation, despite being worrying, now appears to be under control.

Tanina Hadadou

LL.M. Candidate in International Financial Law at King’s College London

Posted on

‘Crisis averted’: City banking and corporate partners react as HSBC acquires SVB UK

After a tense weekend of negotiations, the Bank of England announced on 13 March that HSBC would buy the UK branch of collapsed US bank Silicon Valley Bank (SVB). The acquisition, which was completed for a token amount of £1, prevents SVBUK being put into insolvency.

The Bank of England said in a statement that all depositors’ money with SVBUK is safe and secure as a result of this transaction: ‘SVBUK’s business will continue to be operated normally by SVBUK. All services will continue to operate as normal and customers should not notice any changes.’

Clifford Chance acted on the buy-side for HSBC, while Hogan Lovells provided advice to clients in the UK and US through its multi-practice SVB Task Force. Legal Business understands that Slaughter and May acted for SVBUK and Ashurst for the Bank of England, with Freshfields Bruckhaus Deringer among other firms playing a role in the acquisition.

Despite ongoing tumult in financial markets, UK banking and corporate lawyers greeted the news of the acquisition with optimism.

Jonathan Chertkow, a partner in Hogan Lovells’ financial services team, spoke about the deal to Legal Business. ‘From a fintech perspective, from a bank confidence perspective, this should give everyone real confidence. This was resolved quickly and in a way that protected depositors. That’s clearly a good outcome for everyone. The powers that the regulators have were designed to explore various options for how best to resolve a bank in difficulty. And, very quickly, over a weekend, they’ve done that.’

Taylor Vinters corporate partner Charles Fletcher took a similar view. ‘Action was taken really quickly, with prioritisation from policymakers, because SVB’s operations are so important to our technology and life science sectors, which in turn are so important as a source of growth and prospects for the UK in the short, medium, and long term.’

The rescue deal preserves a key source of funding for the UK tech sector. ‘SVB has been a mainstay of the emerging technology and venture capital ecosystem in the UK’, said Fletcher. ‘They’ve been a really valuable source of both banking services and debt finance to our emerging companies. They’ve been a go-to specialist provider in a part of the market that has been underserved.’

SVBUK had been so crucial in part because traditional lenders have shied away from making major investments in the relatively untested sector.

With SVBUK now owned by a major bank that may change. HSBC’s shares fell 3.8% on Monday on the back of the announcement, and dropped by a further 4.6% between Tuesday and Wednesday. Between Wednesday and Thursday they increased by 2.6%, for a total decline of 9.5% for the five days to Wednesday.

But Fletcher argued that the longer-term picture is far rosier than the immediate drop on Monday suggests. ‘I think HSBC will have got a bargain here. My hope is that they will invest in continuing SVB’s mission in the UK – that they will see that this is actually a serious book of business here, with some great companies in the innovation economy.’

Arguably, a collapse on this scale should, by rights, send shockwaves through affected industries. While SVB was not on the level of the true titans of US banking, such as JP Morgan Chase and Bank of America, it was significant, as the sixteenth-largest bank in the US financial system. And its collapse was the biggest banking failure since 2008.

Still, lawyers do not predict that clients in the sector will move en masse to more established banks. ‘When there’s a shock like this, you often see a flight to safety, to size and scale’, Chertkow explained. ‘But I suspect, if that happens, it’ll be relatively short-lived, because there’s still a lot of innovation, a lot of competition in the market.’

The key question on the minds of clients will be the risk of contagion, and lawyers already note an increase in demand for advice on risk management.

‘Rapidly rising interest rates have created a concern here’, Chertkow noted, ‘and it’s very difficult to say whether that has wider contagion risk.’

But the wider market can take heart from the fact that factors unique to SVB were crucial to its collapse. SVB was doubly exposed to risk from interest rate increases, due to both its significant investment in US Treasury bonds and its client base’s strong reliance on venture capital, which tends to be less willing to invest when rates are higher.

Venture capital investment in tech may be down from the soaring heights it reached in 2021, but Fletcher was keen to stress that it is by no means drying up. He said: ‘SVB was a bank that had a challenge to deploy funds appropriately following a surge of deposits in 2021. Evidently, they invested in the wrong log-term financial instruments and they got caught out in terms of their own treasury and investment strategy as interest rates rose significantly.’

Crucially, SVB in the United States was an outlier in terms of deposit protection. The average US bank has about 50% of its deposits covered by the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation’s (FDIC) guarantee, capped at $250,000. JP Morgan Chase and Bank of America each have about 30% of their deposits covered. At the end of 2022, just 2.7% of SVB’s deposits were protected.

While US regulators failed to find a buyer for SVB on Sunday, their announcement that same night that all depositors would have all their deposits protected provides confidence to the sector, reducing large investors’ incentives to pull their money out of similar operations, and in turn mitigating the risk of similar bank runs in future.

In this way, regulators in the US and the UK were able to limit the fallout from the crash.

Still, lawyers should expect to see a significant increase in regulatory work. Chertkow said: ‘There will be questions asked on both sides of the Atlantic, about what the regulators were looking at, and whether they had information that could have predicted this.’

He also noted that the story will impact ongoing debates about post-Brexit changes to the UK regulatory regime. ‘There’s always a tension in how far you go, whether you have a light-touch regime to improve competition and boost the economy. This event will weigh into some of those decisions. It focuses the mind when you have an event like this. It’s now less theoretical than it might otherwise have seemed, when there hadn’t been anything like this for a decade or more.’

Investigations will likely focus in particular on the speed of the collapse. Just after market close on Wednesday 8 March, SVB announced that it had sold some of its securities at a loss, and that it was seeking to raise $2.25bn in a new share sale. On Thursday, venture capital firms including the influential Founders’ Fund advised portfolio companies to pull their deposits out of SVB.

News of this advice spread, and a full-on bank run began. Trading in SVB shares was halted on Friday morning, and the bank was shuttered by California regulators before the end of the day, and placed into receivership under the FDIC.

Chertkow noted: ‘The speed with which it happened was pretty unusual, and probably a reflection of the digital age we’re now in.’ How to guard against bank runs in such a fast-paced environment will be one of the main questions with which regulators grapple moving forwards.

Clients continue to seek advice, and many law firms have put together cross-border and cross-practice teams to meet demand. But the message remains one of cautious optimism. ‘I think this could have been far worse for customers’, Chertkow said. ‘It’s worked well to come out with a great solution where nobody has lost any money that they deposited, and nobody has lost access to any facilities that they might need to draw down.’

In Fletcher’s view, the UK tech sector in particular has reason to be optimistic: ‘After an anxious few days, it’s great to see that our tech companies got the support they needed, and can go back to being disruptive mould-breakers that are squarely focused on tackling some of the biggest challenges of modern life . The main thing it means is, back to business as normal for them. It’s crisis averted.’

[email protected]

This article first appeared on Legal Business

Posted on

Why I think every lawyer should learn a language

There are over 7,000 languages spoken across the globe. Why, in an industry with communication and collaboration at its core, would you only want to speak one, asks Katie O’Brien, law and Spanish student at the University of Strathclyde.

Throughout school I often felt pressured to find my niche, scrambling to hone in on one singular thing. I failed to see the beauty of my wide-ranging passions. When I turned 18, leaving school and most of the pandemic woes behind me, I was faced with a seemingly monumental decision, what now?

Only through my own research did I stumble upon studying Law and Spanish at University. Law was a combination of my love of English, history, and politics whilst Spanish allowed me to continue learning a language I cared so deeply about in school.

At the time it seemed like the best of both worlds. What I didn’t expect however was that these two worlds would slowly start to blend and overlap. Now as I approach the end of my second year of study, they have become so interconnected I fail to see how one could ever exist without the other.

The use of language is crucial to any legal system. We use it to create statute, to interact with clients, to advocate for people in courts. We are constantly interpretating it differently to minimize or expand our tolerance for certain behaviour. This is why judges will often apply different meanings to even the smallest words.

 

Equally, cases will turn on these alternate meanings to make significant decisions. Decisions which may have been wholly different if every word remained unchanged. Areas of family law, for example, highlight very clearly the role language plays in defining and reflecting changing social attitudes.

Today, language interpretation allows for a more expansive view of what is considered family or marriage, than what would have been even 10 years ago. Regardless of context, it is vital that as people change, the law changes too and language use is always the first step in doing so.

Despite this, whilst law continues to be an attractive career path for young people, languages are often seen as useless in comparison. But the two go hand in hand, and our view of language learning should reflect this.

Languages have broadened my capacity to understand people, their behaviour and attitude towards society. I believe that having a well-rounded view of humanity, our differences as well as what defines us as a collective, will aid me to become a far more understanding, flexible and perceptive lawyer. Compassion lies within the heart of law; above anything else, clients want to feel like you care about them.

Dan Jurafsky, the chair of the department of linguistics at Stanford University says, “discovering what’s universal about languages can help us understand the core of humanity”. Therefore, if we accept the premise that understanding and demonstrating empathy is at the heart of being a good lawyer, we must also accept the role languages play in creating and embedding such values within us.

If this doesn’t entice you to pick up a language, the increase in your professional value might. Speaking a second language will set you apart from other candidates when trying to secure a training contract, and your ability to communicate with the locals, translate and review foreign documents will certainly make you a frontrunner when it comes to overseas seats.

As more firms offer international secondments, and as the idea of globalisation continues to have a firm grasp on the industry in general, there is no better soft skill to have than another language.

The significance of language in the legal sphere and the advantages it brings is undeniable. Understanding more than one legal system, language and culture can open up a world of opportunity. The relationship between law and language is one of mutual exclusivity. Thus, it is crucial for future lawyers to know that choosing to do both is not only viable but extremely important. For me, law is a vehicle for change and language is the tool.

 

Posted on

No Russell Group? No problem.

Ben Follows, law student at the University of Leicester, challenges the rhetoric that the prestige of attending a Russell Group University trumps all else when it comes to job applications.

All too often I hear that if you don’t attend a Russell Group University or Oxbridge you will be at a disadvantage when applying for jobs. This myth is outdated and does not reflect the reality of the abundance of real-world opportunities available to students, regardless of where they study.

Firstly, some context. I am a final year LLB law student studying at the University of Leicester and an aspiring criminal barrister. I am also the chairperson for Leicester University Law Society (LULS) and actively take part in several extracurricular opportunities at Leicester Law School.

When applying to university I received offers from Leeds, Durham and Bristol, and was also interviewed at the University of Cambridge. I chose the University of Leicester after visiting each university’s open day. Leicester Law School showed me that it could offer more than just a law degree and provide me with the necessary opportunities to build a successful career.

I was particularly impressed by the award-winning pro bono society and the competitions run by the LULS, such as advocacy, mooting, mock trials and client interviewing. The level of support for these initiatives set Leicester Law School apart. I felt confident that I would be able to embrace these opportunities without having to worry about the demanding academic pressures of a Russell Group university.

I have never agreed with the notion that a law degree from a Russell Group university is the only way to ensure a successful career in the legal profession. This is because, while the Russell Group universities are well respected and are often ranked top in the UK, high-quality education and the opportunities available to law students are not limited to these institutions. All LLB students, regardless of where they are studying, have to undertake the ‘core modules’ of law. The content of the courses is the same, the only thing that differs between these institutions is the style of teaching.

There are many other reputable universities that offer excellent law degrees and provide opportunities for students to gain practical experience and build their skills. In fact, many law firms and organisations actively seek out graduates from a wide range of universities, as they value diversity of thought and a range of perspectives in their workforce.

Another important factor to keep in mind is the changing application procedure in many law firms. In recent years, there has been a shift towards blind applications, where personal information such as name, gender, and educational background is removed from applications. This process aims to reduce bias and ensure that all applicants are evaluated solely on their merits and abilities.

This change in the application process has levelled the playing field for law students from all universities, including non-Russell Group institutions. Law firms are more likely to focus on the skills and experiences that a candidate has gained, rather than where they attended university.

It is therefore now more important than ever for law students to focus on developing their skills, gaining practical experience, and building a strong network, rather than relying solely on the name of their university. Blind applications provide an equal opportunity for all law students to showcase their abilities and secure a successful legal career.

Here are some of my tips to help law students succeed:

Seek out opportunities for practical experience: participating in advocacy competitions, work experience, internships and can provide valuable hands-on experience and help students develop their essential legal skills.

Build a strong network: attend networking events, join law-related societies and organisations and reach out to alumni from your law school to build a network of contacts in the legal profession (join LinkedIn if you have not already)!

Develop a niche area of expertise: focus on a specific area of law that interests you, such as environmental law, human rights law, or corporate law, and gain experience and knowledge in that area.

Stay up to date with legal developments: Regularly read legal journals and news sources, attend conferences and seminars and participate in continuing education programs to stay informed about the latest developments in the legal profession.

Be proactive: Don’t wait for opportunities to come to you; actively seek out new challenges and experiences, and take the initiative to make things happen, especially programmes targeted at non-Russell Group universities.

Posted on

Training contract programme insight sessions with Cripps

Join us online at one of our insight sessions to find out more about Cripps and our training contract programme.

This year we will be running three insight sessions. Each session will run through the structure of our training contract programme and the recruitment process. Lawyers from one of our three divisions (corporate; real estate and private client) will also be joining the session to talk about the work they do and what it is like to work in that division. Finally, there will be a Q&A session with current NQs and trainees.

To register for a session, simply click on the relevant link below and complete the form. You will then receive an email with joining instructions. You can attend as many sessions as you want.

If you would like to submit a question in advance for the session, please contact Annabel Goh at [email protected].

Commercial real estate focus

Date: Wednesday 8 March 2023
Time: 5pm
Register your place

Private client focus

Date: Tuesday 14 March 2023
Time: 5pm
Register your place

Corporate/commercial focus

Date: Wednesday 26 April 2023
Time: 5pm
Register your place

Further information

The recruitment window for our training contract programme is now open and closes at midnight on 7 July 2023.

If you have any queries about our training contract programme or the insight sessions, please contact Annabel Goh (emerging talent manager) on +44 (0) 1892 506 063 or email [email protected].

Posted on

The most diverse and inclusive law firms

February is LGBT History month. So, in this week’s blog we look at the firms that topped the Future Lawyers diversity and inclusion charts this year.

Each year we ask trainee solicitors across the UK to rank their law firms in 12 different categories. One of the most important categories is inclusiveness.

If an inclusive workplace is high on your agenda (and frankly it should be!), take a closer look at these Future Lawyers Winners firms to find out what they’re doing to make all staff feel included. Many firms have added a specific diversity section to their profile which details how they are furthering their diversity and inclusion initiatives.

Diversity and inclusion winners 2023

At Cooley, said one trainee ‘the inclusive and collegiate culture allows me to feel comfortable asking questions, which is crucial for me to learn’

One of the best things about Vinson & Elkins is ‘the friendly nature and approachability of all staff members and the collegiate atmosphere’

A Crown Prosecution Service trainee said:  ‘I spent some time in a commercial law firm and didn’t like the ethos, CPS has provided such a wonderful environment to train in’

At Mills & Reeve the ‘forward-thinking and inclusive culture’ is spoken of highly

London, Bristol and Reading firm Osborne Clarke values ‘equality, sustainability and people’

Several trainees chose TLT because of its ‘inclusive culture’

Likewise, Latham & Watkins recruits touted the ‘diverse and inclusive culture’ as one of the best things about the firm

Stephenson Harwood‘s inclusive environment helps to keep morale high at the City of London firm

Dechert has ‘a positive learning environment’ which is described as ‘open, relaxed and inclusive’

Bryan Cave Leighton Paisner ‘fosters a genuinely diverse and inclusive environment and doesn’t just pretend to’

At Burges Salmon, everyone is ‘so friendly’, ‘regardless of role or seniority’ and ‘there is a genuine sense of collaboration and working towards a common goal’

Leathes Prior‘s standout feature is ‘the culture: it’s easy to feel relaxed and comfortable being yourself in the workplace’

These are the firms that earned Future Lawyers Winners medals this year. Many more firms scored highly in the diversity and inclusion category. See our winners’ table to find out more.

Posted on

What is a solicitor apprenticeship?

A solicitor apprenticeship is usually a six-year programme comprising a combination of on-the-job training and studying, at the end of which you will qualify as a solicitor.

The idea behind solicitor apprenticeships is to make careers in law more accessible. An apprenticeship also offers the opportunity to ‘earn while you learn’, so that you don’t have to start your legal career drowning in student debt.

Apprenticeships have been growing in popularity in recent years. Taylor Wessing is one of the latest firms to announce that it is launching an apprenticeship scheme.

Level 7 Apprenticeship

This is the most common type of apprenticeship offered by law firms at the moment. It is aimed at students who have completed their A-Levels but who have not yet done an undergraduate degree. Paralegals and chartered legal executives can also take this route.

Apprentices will also need to pass the Solicitors Qualifying Examination (SQE) before being admitted as a solicitor.

Level 7 apprenticeships will take six years for school leavers to complete. Apprentices who have already gained some legal experience may be able to cut this time down.

How does the solicitor apprenticeship work?

Apprentices will spend approximately 80% of their time working in a law firm, and the other 20% at law school or college studying for academic qualifications. In practice, this could mean four days in the office and one day at college.

As part of the academic portion of the apprenticeship, you will study modules such as tort, contract and criminal law, alongside practical legal skills.

How much can I expect to earn as a solicitor apprentice?

Salaries for solicitor apprentices start from around £20,000 in London and £14,000 outside of London

Where can I do a solicitor apprenticeship?

Here is a list of Legal 500 Future Lawyers firms currently offering solicitor apprenticeships. Please note this list is not exclusive and you should check each individual firm website:

Addleshaw Goddard

Bevan Brittan LLP

Burges Salmon

Charles Russell Speechlys

CMS

Fladgate

Hill Dickinson

Irwin Mitchell

Kennedys

Mayer Brown

Michelmores

Norton Rose Fulbright

Osborne Clarke

RPC

TLT LLP

Posted on

End of the road for Womble Bond Dickinson merger talks with BDB Pitmans

Merger talks between Womble Bond Dickinson (WBD) and BDB Pitmans have been called off, the firms announced on Wednesday (1 February) in a joint statement.

Talks of a combination first became public in October 2022, when a story on RollOnFriday prompted WBD and BDB Pitmans to confirm that they were in discussions around a potential merger, albeit early stage.

In the new statement, the firms said: ‘Womble Bond Dickinson and BDB Pitmans announce today that they have decided not to proceed further with their proposed merger. After extensive discussions on the combined proposition, both firms have decided that the best path forward is to remain independent of each other. Excellent relationships have been established and the firms will continue to work closely together in the future.’

No details were given as to why the talks fell over.

As Legal 500 data from late last year revealed, the two firms complemented each other in some notable ways. A combination offered Pitmans access to the US market, while WBD would have expanded its offering in the UK. In particular, WBD has little presence in the southeast and east of the country, while Pitmans is active in Southampton, Reading, and, since acquiring King & Wood Mallesons (KWM)’s office there in 2017, in Cambridge. The two firms also share strengths in real estate, particularly planning, and in private client work.

But, as with any proposed merger, there were always going to be disparities. First, while WBD has offices in the UK and the US, Pitmans has no presence outside the UK. Second, and more significant, there is a gulf between the two firms in terms of both headcount and turnover. WBD employs 888 lawyers, including 218 equity partners and 171 non-equity partners, with a total revenue in 2021-22 of £379m. Pitmans, by contrast, posted revenues of £53.3m, and is home to 235 lawyers, with 50 equity partners and 20 non-equity partners. Moreover, Pitmans’ revenues slumped 3% in the 2021-22 financial year, while WBD’s increased by 2%.

All this means that the proposed merger made sense: a combination firm would have had a top line of over £430m, and over £160m in the UK alone. But it also highlights that any eventual union would not have been one of equals.

A merger is, of course, a major upheaval for both firms involved. Even early-stage talks can be all it takes to upset the applecart and send partners searching for pastures new. A case in point is the ongoing exodus from Shearman & Sterling amid rumours of an upcoming tie-up with Hogan Lovells. Neither WBD nor Pitmans is a stranger to this process. WBD was established in 2017 when US firm Womble Carlyle Sandridge & Rice joined with UK-based Bond Dickinson, and Pitmans in its current form is the product of the 2018 union of Bircham Dyson Bell and Pitmans. But it may be that, especially in the context of reduced dealmaking on both sides of the Atlantic, both firms opted for the stability of the known over the risks of the unknown.

[email protected]

This story first appeared on Legal Business

Posted on

What is the SQE and what does it entail?

The Solicitors Qualifying Exam (SQE) was introduced in September 2021 to replace the old legal education system of undertaking the GDL and LPC.

The SQE is split into two parts: SQE1 and SQE2. Candidates will also need to complete two years of qualifying work experience (QWE) before applying to the Solicitors Regulation Authority (SRA) to be admitted to the roll of solicitors.

SQE1

In SQE1 you will be tested on ‘functioning legal knowledge’, which tests your application of law based on realistic client-based scenarios in multiple choice questions.

The assessments will cover subjects you will have studied on a law degree or a conversion course, as well as the vocational practice areas in stage 1 of the LPC.

SQE1 is split into two Functioning Legal Knowledge (FLK) assessments. These assessments will take the form of multiple-choice papers with 180 questions each, covering all aspects of the SQE1 syllabus.

FLK 1 will cover:

  • Business Law and practice
  • Dispute Resolution
  • Contract
  • Tort
  • Legal System of England and Wales
  • Constitutional and Administrative Law and EU Law and Legal Services
  • Ethics and Professional Conduct (examined in both)

FLK 2 will cover:

  • Property Practice
  • Wills and the Administration of Estates
  • Solicitors Accounts
  • Land Law
  • Trusts
  • Criminal Law and Practice
  • Ethics and Professional Conduct (examined in both)

You must pass SQE1 before being eligible to sit the SQE2 assessments.

SQE2

In SQE2 you will be tested on six practical legal skills required for practice, including:

  • Interviewing (with written attendance note/legal analysis)
  • Advocacy
  • Legal research
  • Legal drafting
  • Legal writing
  • Case and matter analysis
  • The above skills will be tested across the practice areas of:
  • Criminal Litigation
  • Dispute Resolution
  • Property Practice
  • Wills and Intestacy, Probate Administration and Practice
  • Business organisations, rules and procedures

The exam takes place over five days

Posted on

‘With economic downturn, the need to pull the trigger on claims intensifies’ – leading City litigators look at the key disputes trends for 2023

‘Disputes arise when there is disruption, and it seems to me there’s just about every type of disruption at the moment.’

With this, Julian Copeman, a disputes partner at Herbert Smith Freehills neatly summarises market expectations for 2023. It’s going to be a busy year.

From the war in Ukraine, to soaring inflation, interest rate hikes and a cost of living crisis, business conditions couldn’t be much more precarious. Add in a steady trickle of litigation from the Covid pandemic and litigators are predicting a boom year.

As Hogan Lovells financial services litigation partner Alex Sciannaca comments: ‘In normal years, parties may choose to sit on the fence for a period before launching claims, but with the economic downturn, and financial pressure building on some businesses, it may not be possible to do that – the need to pull the trigger on claims sooner rather than later intensifies.’

In the same way that many of the disputes stemming from the financial crisis only got going in the 2010s, they predict that 2023 will see a number of cases starting that relate to breach of contract due to Covid.

‘When the credit crunch hit in 2008, everyone was asking: “Where’s the litigation? You’d expect to see litigation arising,” explains Copeman. ‘It didn’t happen in 2008, there was just a lot of running around and trying to solve immediate issues. But it came through in the early 2010s and then there were years of litigation that ended in about 2018. Now there will be disputes that will start and last for the next few years.’

It’s a viewpoint shared by many of his peers in London. Mark Sansom (pictured, centre), Freshfields Bruckhaus Deringer’s London head of dispute resolution and co-head of the global competition litigation group, says that he ‘has not known a time where it’s been as busy as it is now in over 20 years’, adding that ‘certain areas are off the charts in terms of level of activity. We are incredibly busy right across London.’

Simmons & Simmons UK disputes head Patrick Boylan points out that while the last few years have been boom times for M&A, ‘the economic climate is very different now than it was when people were entering into these deals’. In his view, the sight of heavy clouds on the economic horizon will likely encourage clients to seek potential redress through dispute resolution.

But while partners may be expecting a boom in disputes work generally, there are a number of trends in particular that they identify. Here, we take a look at where litigators expect to be busy in 2023.

ESG – related disputes

According to Linklaters’ global disputes head, Alison Wilson (pictured, left), ESG-related disputes have been defining the global disputes market since 2020. She adds: ‘There’s been an increase in greenwashing claims, activity against states for climate inaction, and interest from other regulatory authorities including the Competition and Markets Authority and the Advertising Standards Agency for false advertising claims.’

Sciannaca warns that companies need be aware that they ‘could potentially be liable for acts of overseas subsidiaries, and also need to undertake appropriate due diligence and monitoring of overseas suppliers to ensure that anti-bribery and corruption standards are met. Claims by NGOs could pose particular challenges, as their motivation for taking legal action may extend beyond financial redress to a desire for meaningful change.’

According to partners, they are now seeing disputes mandates across the E, the S and the G, including ESG compliance work and supply chain disputes around sustainability and modern slavery issues.

Group litigation

The rise of group litigation has been one of the big stories in disputes in recent years, and lawyers expect this trend to continue in 2023, particularly in areas such as competition. ‘We will continue to see a growth in collective proceedings actions,’ notes Mark Molyneux, head of disputes at Addleshaw Goddard, ‘especially in the tech space.’

Freshfields global head of dispute resolution, Sarah Parkes (pictured, right), adds that 2023 is likely to be the year when class actions activity in the UK hits maturity, with cases going to trial and settlement details emerging. She comments: ‘The mass claims in all their forms, all those proceedings will come-of-age. In the last year or so, you’ve seen Merricks v Mastercard go up to the UK Supreme Court and back on threshold legal issues – you’ll now see some of those cases actually go through the trial process.’

Litigation funding

With general disputes activity and group litigation looking busy, it’s unsurprising that litigation funding activity is also expected to boom. Sciannaca says there are an ‘increasing number of clients considering litigation funding as a route to pursuing claims, including those that wouldn’t normally have been interested in it’.

Copeman adds: ‘In troubled times people look to invest in things that seem safer. The funders have a spread of cases, they know what they’re doing in terms of spreading risk, so money will keep flowing towards litigation funding, and in the last few years that’s become a force within the market.’

Competition litigation

Competition disputes have been increasing in recent years and many predict this to continue. At Linklaters, Wilson says: ‘the competition litigation sphere will be extremely interesting. It’ll be interesting to see how the competition appeals tribunal deals with the increasing number of non-traditional claims. There’s been a move away from only traditional competition claims, such as price fixing or abuse of dominance, to broader allegations of unfair trading practices.’

Copeman highlights the shift towards competition class actions, pointing out the Meta claim that his firm is advising on. ‘You’re seeing these claims against Big Tech being fashioned as competition claims, and contentious competition litigation.’

Over at Travers Smith, dispute resolution partner Toby Robinson comments: ‘I expect funders to continue to see competition claims as potentially fertile, if uncertain, ground.’ However, he warns that ‘funders aren’t charities – as long as there are problems establishing damages, they’ll be reluctant to fund claims’.

Crypto & blockchain

Digital assets, blockchain and crypto-related claims are also increasing, according to Sciannaca. He points out that one consequence of this increase is that ‘the English courts have been asked to grapple with some tricky issues concerning frauds perpetrated by unknown persons, including the hacking of crypto wallets – and we are seeing the law adapt to allow the victims of fraud to pursue their claims, despite the inherent challenges these types of case present. We’ve seen some progressive thinking from the commercial courts in England, and London could well become a destination of choice for digital asset disputes, where jurisdiction allows for it.’

The high-profile collapse of cryptocurrency exchange FTX has had what Damian Taylor, disputes partner and co-head of international arbitration at Slaughter and May, calls a ‘ripple effect’ across the sector. He continues: ‘Because it’s so new there isn’t really law there’, so investors trying to get their money out of crypto exchanges may find themselves navigating knotty and tortuous paths without clear and well-trodden routes.

Investigatory activity

The final trend that Wilson anticipates is an uptick in investigatory activity. She concludes: ‘The post-pandemic period across the market as a whole saw a decrease in regulatory activity, but we’re starting to see this pick up again, and the FCA is looking to clear some of the longstanding investigations that it has been managing as the new director of enforcement comes in in April.’

[email protected]

[email protected]

This article first appeared on Legal Business