Search and find what you need faster.

The Employment Rights Bill: what comes next?

Posted on: July 22nd, 2025 by Natasha Cox

What happens next?

It is anticipated that six months after the Bill receives Royal Assent and the first amendments are implemented, the second wave of changes will take place. These changes will have a substantial impact on how employers manage the day-to-day operations of their businesses.

Collective redundancy

Currently, when an employer proposes to make 20 or more employees at one establishment redundant within 90 days, it must comply with the requirements of collective consultation. A failure to do so could result in a protective award of up to 90 days’ pay.

From April 2026, the protective award is expected to double to 180 days’ pay, per employee. The increased costs on employers for failing to comply with legislative requirements are hoped to reinforce that compliance is not optional. Redundancy, especially collective redundancy, remains a complex area of employment law. Proactively seeking legal advice proactively is essential to ensure legal compliance and protect the business.  

‘Day one’ paternity leave and unpaid parental leave

The current law requires employees to have one complete year of service to be eligible for parental leave and 26 weeks (assessed 15 weeks before the expected birth week). The Bill proposes removing the qualifying period so that the entitlement to leave becomes a right from the first day of employment. As more and more individuals become entitled to leave from the first day of employment, businesses will need to review how they operate on a day-to-day basis to ensure that these periods of leave do not adversely affect their staff by increasing their workload to unmanageable levels.

Whistleblowing protections – Sexual harassment

In October 2024, employers were required to take steps to prevent sexual harassment.

The Bill will introduce a protection for those who make disclosures of sexual harassment. By making disclosures about sexual harassment that has occurred, is occurring or is likely to occur a ‘protected disclosure’, the Bill protects those who make such disclosures from detriments, up to and including dismissal, under whistleblowing protections. Any dismissal in retaliation for making a protected disclosure shall remain automatically unfair.

Fair worker agency

The minimum standards to which employees are entitled are currently governed by their respective authorities. For example, HMRC monitors if employers are paying the national minimum wage.

From April 2026, we expect to see the introduction of an independent enforcement body, the Fair Worker Agency (‘the Agency’). The powers of the Agency will extend beyond merely enforcing the minimum standards to which employees are entitled. It shall also have the power to bring proceedings in the Employment Tribunal for employees who are unwilling to, or unable to, themselves. Throughout litigation, the Agency will provide legal assistance, support or representation to litigants in person. Where the Agency brings or assists in a successful claim, it shall be able to recover its costs from the employer.

The introduction of the Agency aims to improve business compliance with employment legislation. Employers’ practices will be under more scrutiny than ever, as individuals become increasingly educated about their rights and entitlements. Businesses should conduct regular HR audits to ensure they remain compliant with the ever-evolving employment laws. 

Statutory sick pay

Currently, employees are only eligible for Statutory Sick Pay (SSP) if they meet the following eligibility criteria:

  1. earn an average of at least £125 per week; and
  2. are ill for more than three days in a row (including non-working days).

The proposed changes will result in more employees being eligible. For the first time, all workers will be entitled to SSP, as the lower earning threshold has been removed, along with the three-day waiting period. Individuals will be entitled to SSP from their first day of illness, provided they are ill for two or more consecutive days. Therefore, the costs to employers will increase – prudent employers will be vigilant about workload and workplace practices that contribute to illness, in order to prevent individuals from becoming sick. They will also need to review their long-term absence policies and take proactive steps to facilitate a return to work.

Trade union measures

To modernise the balloting of union members and streamline processes, the bill will introduce ‘e-balloting’ and make the preferred use of electronic mail. The hope is that by improving efficiency, trade unions shall be able to provide improved and quicker support for their members.

If you would like more advice on the changes brought by this Bill and your obligations as an employer, please contact our Employment team

The Employment Rights Bill: The journey so far

Posted on: July 21st, 2025 by Ella Darnell

The Employment Rights Bill – the journey so far

Published in October 2024, the Employment Rights Bill (‘the Bill’) introduced 28 significant changes to transform employment law. The changes are comprehensive and will transform many aspects of employment. Affecting all industries, the Bill will impact all employees, and every business which engages workers.

As a key component in the Government’s ‘Make Work Pay’ plan, the aim of introducing the bill is simple, to improve employment rights for workers. The proposed changes are hoped to help more people stay in work and consequently for living standards to be improved. This week, we shall be publishing a series, taking each of the implementation stages in turn to explain the anticipated changes, concluding on Friday with considerations as to what employers can do to prepare.

Since October 2024, the Bill has made its way through many of the required stages, and on 1 July 2025, the government published a roadmap for its delivery. Most recently in parliament on 7 July 2025, the Bill is currently in the final stages in the House of Lords (the Report stage). Once the Bill is passed by the House of Lords, it will return to the House of Commons for consideration of the amendments made.

The projected road map provides employers with advanced warning of the order and dates the changes shall come into effect. While the implementation dates and the anticipated changes to the law may alter, proactive and prudent employers will take this time to educate themselves on what is expected, in order to ensure it is fully prepared. The saying “fail to prepare, prepare to fail” has never felt more relevant to employment law.

The roadmap

The Bill is expected to receive Royal Assent in autumn this year, and as early as September. As the first week of school summer holidays is upon us, and many employers are working with a reduced workforce, it is imperative that the upcoming changes are not overlooked and preparation is not postponed.

Whilst there is no guarantee the Bill will receive Royal Assent as planned, as the biggest changes proposed come from within the Government, it is hoped that they will not delay the Bill’s implementation. Employers must keep abreast of the immediate changes and developments as well as those expected in April 2026, and subsequent changes in 2027. to ensure compliance and reduce the risk of complaints and litigation.

Immediate effect and winter 2025

Repeal the Strikes (Minimum Services Levels) Act 2023 and the majority of the Trade Union Act 2016

Only recently introduced by the previous Conservative Government, the Strikes (Minimum Service Levels) Act 2023 provided the government the right to set out the minimum service level to be provided during strike action in the following industries:

  • Border security;
  • Decommissioning of nuclear installations and management of radioactive waste and spent fuel;
  • Education services;
  • Fire and rescue services;
  • Health services; and
  • Transport services.

The Trade Union Act 2016 introduced a number of restrictions on strikes, including restrictions on picketing, higher ballot thresholds and the requirement to provide longer notice periods.

The Bill is currently being amended to including provisions the Government consulted on in December last year in relation to simplify the information unions will be required to provide employers in relation to industrial action. We await confirmation of what the simplified information shall be. By reducing the information required, it is hoped that the scope for employers to request injunctions preventing industrial actions on the basis of a union’s failure to comply with the legislative requirements is reduced.

The Strikes (Minimum Service Levels) Act 2023 shall be repealed as soon as the Bill receives Royal Assent as will the majority of the Trade Union Act 2016, without consultation.

Protection for taking part in industrial action and being a trade union member

The Supreme Court recently held in Secretary of State for Business and Trade v Mercer that an employee who participates in industrial action is not protected from detriments short of dismissal for doing so.

As currently drafted, the Bill would introduce protection from detriments short of dismissal for employees who take part in industrial action. The rights of representatives of recognised trade unions would also be increased, to enable them to better support their members. Adding to a representative’s current right to paid time off, they would also be provided with reasonable facilities and accommodations to carry out their duties.

Consultation as to the protections and rights of trade unions are expected to begin as soon as winter 2025 with an intended implementation date in October 2026.

If you would like more advice on the changes brought by this Bill and your obligations as an employer, please contact our Employment team

Ethnic abuse in the workplace – a practical guide for employers

Posted on: July 18th, 2025 by Natasha Cox

Under the Equality Act 2010, employers are legally required to protect their employees from abuse or discrimination related to ‘protected characteristics’. There are nine protected characteristics: age, disability, gender reassignment, marriage, pregnancy, race, religion or belief, sex and sexual orientation.

Discrimination can take several forms, including:

  • Direct discrimination: treating someone less favourably simply because they hold a particular characteristic;
  • Indirect discrimination: treating everyone the same, which results in an adverse effect on people with a particular protected characteristic (which cannot be justified);
  • Harassment: unwanted conduct related to a protected characteristic which has the purpose or effect of violating a person’s dignity or creating an intimidating, hostile, degrading humiliating or offensive environment; and
  • Victimisation: subjecting someone to a detriment because they have done (or will do) something in connection with the Equality Act 2010 (including make complaints about discrimination).

Ethnic abuse in the workplace

We were recently instructed by an individual who was subjected to serious and disturbing abuse by her colleagues, based on her ethnic background and assumptions about her political opinions. There was no evidence to support any of these contentions, which had been circulated within the workplace as if they were fact. This conduct constituted discrimination, bullying and harassment. We were able to negotiate significant compensation for our client in relation to these potential claims, which would have caused reputational damage to her employer if they had been contested in an open tribunal.

Practical advice for employers

Abuse on the basis of ethnicity may manifest through offensive remarks, exclusionary behaviour, or more overt acts of hostility. Employers must be alert to the ways in which global events can trigger or exacerbate such conduct in the workplace, as they increasingly influence interpersonal dynamics and employee relations within diverse workforces.

The war in Ukraine, Israeli action in Gaza and the conflict between Israel and Iran are fuelling heightened sensitivities in UK workplaces. Employers must take steps to safeguard employees from discrimination, harassment, victimisation, or unfair treatment based on their religion, national origin and/or perceived political stance.

To minimise risk of Equality Act 2010 claims, employers should aim to provide a safe and inclusive work environment in which employees are able to feel comfortable raising concerns. Employers should avoid stereotyping or making assumptions about employees based on nationality. Indeed, they can help to prevent this by offering training on unconscious bias and cultural sensitivity.

Employers are advised to:

  • review and reinforce anti-discrimination and anti-harassment policies with a particular emphasis on preventing xenophobic or politically charged behaviour, including by promoting respectful dialogue in the workplace;
  • train managers in how to handle sensitive conversations and communications in a way which balances competing rights and freedoms;
  • monitor for signs of workplace tension or exclusion based on perceived religion, national origin or political or religious affiliations;
  • handle any grievances linked to political or religious tensions robustly;
  • manage reputational risk where employee conduct or public statements intersect with sensitive geopolitical issues, via disciplinary proceedings where appropriate; and

  • be alert to signs of stress presented by employees linked to external geopolitical events and signpost them towards mental health resources.

Take action today—review your workplace policies and ensure your team is equipped to prevent and address ethnic abuse. Contact the Lawrence Stephens employment team.

Upward-Only Rent Reviews Banned: What UK Leaseholders Need to Know

Posted on: July 17th, 2025 by Ella Darnell

As part of the newly introduced English Devolution and Community Empowerment Bill, the UK Government has unveiled plans to outlaw Upward-Only Rent Reviews (UORRs) clauses in commercial leases — a move that could reshape the future of landlord-tenant dynamics.

The ban will apply to new agreements where, on the date the lease is entered into, the new rent following a rent review is not known and cannot be determined. It will not impact those leases already in place however, if implemented, any clause in a new or renewal commercial lease, whether contracted out of the 1954 Act or not, requiring the rent not to decrease will be unenforceable.

The proposal, aimed at revitalising high streets and supporting small businesses, has already been met with mixed reception across the property sector and The British Property Federation has criticised the lack of industry consultation.

What Are Upward-Only Rent Reviews?

UORRs are a common feature in commercial leases in England and Wales. UORRs allow rent to increase or remain static at review dates – typically every five years – but never decrease, even if market rents fall. This industry accepted approach to commercial leasing has long been favoured by landlords for providing income certainty and supporting property valuations.

Tenant Perspective: A Welcome Relief

For tenants, particularly small and independent businesses, the proposed ban is likely to be regarded as a positive development. UORRs have incurred criticism for binding tenants to unsustainable rent levels, especially in volatile markets. However, the outlaw of UORRs will effectively transfer the risk from tenant to landlord.

As such, a decision will need to be made by landlords as to whether to adopt a fixed rent or to permit rent variation through a rent review clause that accommodates both rises and reductions in rent throughout the term of the lease.

Landlord Perspective: A New Risk Landscape

Landlords, however, will almost certainly have concerns about the reform. Whilst rental income from commercial leases is currently considered a stable and predictable revenue stream, the prohibition of UORRs will introduce greater volatility in cashflow. Furthermore, industry stakeholders will argue that the outlaw of UORRs will undermine the perceived security of rental income and place prospective commercial property developers at a disadvantage when seeking finance.

Landlords may therefore choose to obviate the balance between risk and reward by abandoning open market review clauses and opting for the stability provided by index linked reviews.

What Happens Next?

The proposed ban on upward-only rent reviews marks a significant shift in UK commercial leasing. Whilst it aims to give tenants greater flexibility and affordability, landlords face a more complex and potentially less predictable income landscape.

In order to counteract this, it is possible that landlords will take a more aggressive stance at the outset of negotiations to mitigate the risk of stagnant or falling rents. Similarly, the inclusion of tenant-friendly terms, such as break clauses and rent-free periods, may become less prevalent as landlords reassess their leasing strategies.

Alternatively, landlords may opt for shorter leases which are to be contracted out of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1954. The potential drawback of this approach is that the cost of reletting the property will likely be passed to the tenant.

We may also see more pre-agreed stepped rents being negotiated (such increases would not be caught by the ban as the rent would be known at the outset) and this would give both tenants and landlords certainty at the start of a lease as to how much rent will be payable at any given time during the lease term.

Ultimately, the success of this legislative change will depend on how effectively the market adapts to a model that seeks to balance commercial flexibility with financial viability. As the Bill progresses through Parliament, stakeholders on both sides will need to stay alert to legislative developments and prepare for a new era in lease negotiation.

For more information on our Commercial Real Estate team, click here.

Authors

Nickhil Mandora

Louisa Hartley

Sophia Dixon

Digital Asset Law Reform: Key Takeaways for UK Advisers

Posted on: July 17th, 2025 by Natasha Cox

Following the Law Commission’s proposals for crypto and digital asset reform regime, Director Matt Green explores what these proposals mean for advisers – as well as those looking to recover stolen or hacked cryptocurrency.

Matt’s article was co-authored with Ashley Fairbrother, Partner at Edmonds Marshall McMahon.

Matt and Ashley’s article was published in FT Adviser, 16 July 2025, and can be found here.

In June 2025, the UK’s Law Commission proposed new powers to drastically help victims of fraud following the loss of cryptoassets where key details, like the bad actors’ details, are unknown. These proposals would allow courts to grant free-standing information orders at the outset of crypto fraud investigations, before the victim needs to commit to pursuing a substantive claim.

This may prove to be a vital legal reform and significantly increase access to justice, especially when victims have lost significant funds, and do not want to risk spending more money pursuing unknown parties who may or may not still hold funds.

The crypto fraud epidemic

Fraud concerning cryptoassets is a significant issue for consumers and businesses alike. Chainalysis’s “The 2025 Crypto Crime Report” notes that ‘pig butchering’ scams (i.e. scams via social engineering) have increased 40% year on year, and cost victims a total of $9.9 billion as of 2024. Separately, Chainalysis’s report notes that $2.2billion was stolen from crypto platforms across this period.

Last year, Action Fraud – the UK’s reporting centre for fraud and cybercrime – reported over 649,000 instances of investment fraud, with 66% attributed to crypto investment related schemes. Individuals are losing life savings, family homes and pensions, and taking out astronomical loans to pay fraudsters who demand more money to release funds already taken under the guise of investment profits.

Scams are often initiated by telephone calls, texts and emails from actors purporting to be from major cryptocurrency exchanges or banks who hold convincing personal data, usually obtained via data scraping, to harbour a victim’s trust and eventually extract funds. Assets are then typically laundered to facilitate human trafficking, drugs trades and organised crime.

Currently, victims can follow their funds across their respective blockchains by providing practitioners with their transaction identifiers, which show the funds being withdrawn or sent from their control to the fraudster. Following a traceable laundering process, funds can end up at centralised retail outfits like Binance, Kraken and Coinbase, offshore swapping services like SimpleSwap and ChangeNow, to purportedly decentralised outfits, who offer services without obtaining Know Your Client documents or Anti Money Laundering checks, performing permissionless transactions.

Once at these exchanges, victims need to know key information to consider the viability of pursuing a legal claim, including details of the exchange’s customer, information concerning internet-protocol addresses, trading histories and, of course, the balances held at accounts. Without this information, it is extremely difficult to consider whether a victim should spend good money chasing lost assets, and in most reported cases, victims have taken a high-risk approach in pursuing “persons unknown” with limited information.

To obtain this material, lawyers can use gateway 25(b) of the Civil Procedure Rules (which dictate the rules around litigation in England and Wales), which requires victims to start a substantive claim alongside an application for disclosure of information. This means they must be prepared to sue someone and detail the claim clearly at that stage.

As a commercial proposition, this might be extremely costly. The Law Commission recognises this at paragraph 3.78 of its report, where it states that “victims are not always able to say that they definitely intend to commence proceedings in England and Wales”

Similarly, to obtain wider reliefs against perpetrators, including a worldwide freezing injunction which prohibits the defendants from moving or dissipating their assets globally up to the value of the claim, the victim must also show from the outset that they have other assets to the value of the loss, on the basis that the injunction detriments the defendants unfairly. This is an enormous burden for any victim of fraud to overcome, without really knowing anything about the defendants.

Currently, the bar to entry is very high. Only those with deep pockets, and a high appetite for risk, can pursue their funds via the courts.

The Law Commission’s proposal

The Law Commission has recently published the “Digital assets and (electronic) trade documents in private international law, including Section 72 of the Bills of Exchange Act 1882, consultation paper” to assist victims, by allowing the court to grant a “free -standing information order to assist a claimant at the initial investigations stage of the proceedings”.

Should the proposal be successful, this would allow victims to assess the viability of the claim and consider the facts at hand without starting a formal claim. The costs might be substantially lower, and without the risk associated with formal litigation.

The proposed test for granting one of these orders is provided at paragraph 4.92 within the consultation paper, and summarised as:

  1. The case has a certain strength, in that the claimant must evidence a wrongdoing;
  2. The disclosure of this information is necessary to allow the victim to bring legal proceedings or other redress;
  3. The court must be satisfied that there is no other court in which the claimant could reasonably bring the application for disclosure;
  4. The court must be satisfied there is an adequate link to England and or Wales. For example, that the victim resides, domiciles or is a national here. This might also include (though not explicit in the paper) that the defendant purports to have an adequate connection to this jurisdiction – for example where a scam investment website says the company is registered in England.

Effect and next steps

In principle, this initiative will drastically lower the obstacles to recourse by giving victims a cost-effective solution to assess a claim’s viability and mitigate litigation risks early on. A consultation period for this paper is open until 8 September 2025, and many law firms and individuals have already backed the Law Commission’s above proposal, including both of us as authors of this piece as well as our peers including Nathan Capone at Fieldfisher.

This reform is vital in widening access to justice by revolutionising the initial stages of crypto asset recovery by removing substantial financial and procedural barriers that currently prevent many victims from commencing a claim.

To find out more about our Blockchain and Digital Assets services, please click here

 

Gregg Wallace sacked by BBC: Businesses must take a strong stance against workplace misconduct

Posted on: July 9th, 2025 by Natasha Cox

Following the news that presenter Gregg Wallace has been sacked by the BBC over an inquiry into alleged misconduct, Solicitor Becci Collins comments on the importance of businesses taking strong and immediate action against inappropriate behavior in the workplace.

Becci’s comments were published in Personnel Today, 9 July 2025, and can be found here.

Becci Collins, a solicitor in the employment team at Lawrence Stephens, said Wallace’s dismissal was “a stark reminder that inappropriate workplace behaviour will not be tolerated.

“However it is concerning that individuals have reported concerns about his behaviour for many years without action being taken.

“Employers must do better in complying with their obligations to employees, particularly in relation to their obligation to prevent sexual harassment in the workplace.

“The reputation and seniority of the individuals about whom complaints are made must have no bearing on how those complaints are investigated, what outcomes are reached or the punishments meted out to those who violate the law on harassment and discrimination.”

To find out more about employer obligations and how we can help, please click here

Ban on non-disclosure agreements: victory or vanity?

Posted on: July 9th, 2025 by Natasha Cox

The government’s press release of 8 July 2025[1] sets out its proposal to amend the Employment Rights Bill (‘ERB’) to introduce a statutory ban on employers using non-disclosure agreements (‘NDAs’) in cases where an employee alleges harassment, sexual harassment or discrimination.

While the ERB already contained a variation to the Employment Rights Act 1996 to extend the scope of whistleblowing legislation to include allegations of sexual harassment, this new amendment could completely rewrite the rules on how employers deal with claims of harassment and discrimination by employees. But is it really the glorious victory campaigners make it out to be?

What is an NDA?

In employment law, NDAs are most commonly used in the form of a confidentiality clause. They are found in a number of employment-related documents, including contracts of employment.

It has also been standard practice for some time that settlement agreements entered into between employers and employees (either on termination of the employee’s employment or as part of the settlement of an ongoing Employment Tribunal claim) include a confidentiality clause preventing the disclosure of the existence of the settlement agreement. Crucially, they also prevent the disclosure of the circumstances leading up to the settlement agreement. This has traditionally been one of the biggest benefits for employers, allowing them to minimise the risk of adverse PR arising from Employment Tribunal claims. So why would the government take that benefit away?

The government’s rationale

The current proposal is not to ban NDAs in their entirety. However, their use will be severely curtailed in that they will be barred in cases of discrimination and harassment. 

There are existing mechanisms in place that restrict the use of NDAs. For example, any attempt to prevent an employee from making a protected disclosure under whistleblowing legislation (for example reporting a criminal offence to the authorities) is unenforceable. There has also been non-statutory guidance published by the Equality and Human Rights Commission[1] in place since 2019 on the use of confidentiality agreements in discrimination, harassment and victimisation cases. However, these protections have been criticised as too weak and that is why the government has tabled this amendment to the ERB. Campaigners say that NDAs have been misused for too long, ‘silencing’ victims of discrimination and harassment by preventing them from speaking about their experiences in the workplace. High profile cases such as that of Zelda Perkins (an ex-assistant of Harvey Weinstein) who has fought the NDA she signed for the last eight years, highlight why campaigners felt this change was needed.  

Effect on settlement agreements

If passed, the ban will mean that any NDAs that seek to prevent an employee disclosing an allegation of harassment, sexual harassment or discrimination will be unenforceable.

While this change will affect the use of NDAs in any employment documentation, the change will be most keenly felt in relation to settlement agreements.

These agreements have an important place in settling employment disputes, providing certainty and closure for both employees and employers. There is a risk that the government’s proposal will place employees at a disadvantage because employers may be less inclined to enter into settlements when they no longer have the comfort that the circumstances complained of, and any settlement reached, will remain confidential. This may force employees to pursue their claim via the Employment Tribunal, a process which is expensive and arduous, particularly due to the extreme delays within the Tribunal service. For these reasons, the government is unlikely to achieve its aim of ensuring that employees are no longer forced to suffer in silence because instead they may be forced to either walk away with nothing, or simply ‘put up and shut up’.

That said, if the ban on NDAs does come into force, settlement agreements will remain an important mechanism for employers in dealing with employment disputes because:

  • With the current Tribunal backlog, the average time from issuing a claim to a final hearing is over a year (and more commonly, over 18 months in cases of discrimination). This means that seeing cases all the way through the Tribunal process will result in significant legal costs.
  • In addition, litigation is distracting and time consuming, sucking up resources that could be used elsewhere.
  • Key witnesses may have left the business prior to a final hearing, meaning the company won’t be best placed to defend itself.
  • The ERB is a significant overhaul of employment legislation and creates several ‘Day 1’ rights for employees, including protection against unfair dismissal, which will further increase the wait time for Employment Tribunal claims.
  • In matters not involving allegations of harassment, sexual harassment or discrimination, the ban has no effect.

When will this be implemented?

The government’s July 2025 roadmap for implementing the ERB[2] describes a phased approach to implementation. Some changes will take effect on the day the ERB is given Royal Assent, while others will take effect from April 2026 and October 2026. It is not yet known when this amendment, if passed, will take effect, but it would be no later than 2027.

Get in touch if you require further guidance on the use of NDAs or in relation to allegations of harassment, sexual harassment or discrimination.

[1] Government Press Release: Press release: Ban on controversial NDAs silencing abuse

[2] Implementing the Employment Rights Bill – Our roadmap for delivering change

 

 

 

DEI in Real Estate Finance: How Diversity, Equity & Inclusion Are Reshaping the Sector

Posted on: July 9th, 2025 by Ella Darnell

Director Rachel Coulthard comments in Private Equity and Real Estate (PERE) Magazine on diversity, equity, and inclusion in the real estate finance space.

Rachel’s comments were published in PERE, 1 July 2025, and can be found on page 69 of the issue, here.

“There has been a massive increase in the prevalence of DEI awareness. Many organisations have implemented regular training and promoted conversations about the impact of language towards women and minority groups, for instance knowing not to use infantilising language towards women.”

“Investors and managers are now accepting that DEI is not just important to promote inclusive workplaces, but also vital to attract and retain employees. The best want the best, and by any measure, equality is what is best. For instance, we have created a Gender Equality Network, which seeks parity between the sexes. This includes goals such as increasing our proportion of women directors and striving for equal pay for employees, regardless of gender.

“I lead our Women in Real Estate Finance initiative, which spotlights the incredible work being done by women in the sector and creates further opportunities for women, both by building networks of like-minded individuals and by giving more junior women in the field mentoring and educational growth opportunities.”

“While progress has been achieved, it has not been without hurdles and occasional setbacks. Most notably, there has been a social and political backlash to DEI in the United States, and many major law firms, corporations, and other non-government bodies have either lessened their emphasis on DEI or removed it entirely. Furthermore, the increase and normalisation of toxic masculinity among influencers has shifted the landscape for younger generations. These trends are deeply troubling, and all those who believe in and fight for equality and inclusion need to stand their ground amidst the current climate.” 

Why Agile Leadership Is Key to Law Firm Culture and Expansion

Posted on: July 3rd, 2025 by Natasha Cox

Chief Operating Officer Johnny Nichols comments in Legal Practice Management magazine on how Lawrence Stephens’ strong people-first culture, and focus on developing an effective leadership model, has enabled the firm’s continued growth and development.

Johnny’s comments were published in People Management Magazine’s July edition, and can be found here.

How would you describe your firm’s current leadership model? 

“Our leadership model is both flat and lean. Flat in that we have a number of departments focused on particular legal disciplines and markets, but all with a say in the management and direction of the firm. Lean in that there are few lawyers who have time targets devoted to this.

“There are essentially three layers of leadership: the Senior Directors, who own the firm, Directors, who lead on the legal services we offer, and the Executive Committee who take day-to-day decisions on behalf of the firm.

“A flat and lean organisational structure, with fewer management layers, offers several benefits including faster decision-making, improved communication, increased employee autonomy, and a more agile response to changes with little need for consensus building. This makes us more agile and able to take advantage of opportunities where other firms may struggle. A recent example of this was the recruitment of a Real Estate team from Memery Crystal during its recent crisis, from under the noses of several larger firms. We were able to meet with and agree terms quickly and decisively, which resonated well with those teams affected.

“However, we recognise that this flat structure may become unwieldy as the firm grows and more streamlining may be required.”  

Have you considered or introduced new roles to lead certain aspects of your firm?

“Having recognised the need for growth and the limitations of Directors undertaking these roles (with neither the time nor the expertise) the firm took the decision to firstly recruit a Chief Operating Officer (me) to take the lead on the establishment of a fully functioning and appropriately empowered Business Services team. This included a new Head of Learning and Development, Head of Risk and Compliance, and more recently a Chief Finance Officer. As law firms become more sophisticated and the level of compliance and regulation has increased, law firms have had to recruit specialists into these roles in order to meet these. Having these people on board also relieves fee earners from tasks they were fundamentally ill-equipped for anyway, allowing them to focus on their fee earning roles.”

What steps is your firm taking to develop business and leadership skills among fee earners?

“Fee earners are not taught this at law school and to expect them to be able to just pick this up ‘on the job’ is unrealistic. Developing business and leadership skills through formal programmes is then really important and we are providing more training for line managers on their role, enabling them to better support and motivate staff.

“Formal programmes now exist to offer firmwide DEI training, and regular ‘lunch and learn’ events foster a collaborative, knowledge sharing environment. These often involve using existing expertise at the firm to upskill others, which in itself is a developmental activity. On top of these firmwide approaches, targeted groups now have new training programmes to support through crucial periods of their career, for example at Senior Associate level. More bespoke training is also available, including targeted coaching for staff where required.”

Succession planning is a common challenge among SME firms – how is yours preparing the next generation of leaders? 

“Recognising the limitations of the lockstep model, our firm has already moved away from this and is now constituted as a limited company. A limited company provides a more structured framework for managing the business, with clear roles for directors and shareholders, which is beneficial in a larger firm with complex operations.

“In terms of diversity, we work hard to ensure that everyone at our firm is treated fairly and equally. This includes our recruitment processes, career development, recognition and reward. As part of this initiative, the firm has agreed a target of 25% females in Directorship by 2026, and we look set to achieve this target by next year.”

How important is it for firms to shift focus away from individual performance exclusively? What practical steps are you taking to encourage effective collaboration?

“We have hosted a number of training sessions over the last year for cohorts at different stages of their careers which included discussions on the themes raised in the DCM Insights research.  We recognise the need for effective collaboration across all our activities and our own efforts to encourage this include a move away from purely  ‘X times salary’ targets for individuals. These are now considered at department level and budgets set to support work being fed down to more junior levels and to allow time for more managerial/strategy work for those more senior.

“When it comes to feeding back, individual reviews are still seen as important, but should always be considered in the wider picture, and 360 degree feedback is encouraged.”

Looking ahead to 2030, what defining leadership qualities or frameworks will separate thriving firms from struggling ones?

“Many firms talk about their unique culture being the key to their success. There is considerable evidence to support the view that a strong and distinct culture can lead to increased revenue, employee satisfaction, and improved client satisfaction. Against this positive backdrop, there is also growing evidence of increasing consolidation of law firms and potentially increasing external investment in law firms in the lead up to 2023. Both these themes introduce a level of change and potential disruption and it’s my view that only firms with a strong and engaged leadership will be able to maintain and develop a positive culture in the light of such change in what is regarded as vital to a thriving firm.

“So, looking ahead, I think that the most important quality for successful law firm leaders will be the ability to not only maintain and manage an existing culture, but be able to adapt to external influence brought about through combining teams and firms, and the involvement of any external investors along the way.”.

To find out more about our story, values and management approach, please click here

 

FCA Widens Scope of Non-Financial Misconduct Rules

Posted on: July 3rd, 2025 by Natasha Cox

Senior Associate Emma Cocker comments on the FCA’s announcement that it will treat bullying and harassment as serious ‘non-financial misconduct’ across all regulated firms – not just banks.

Emma’s comments were published in Personnel Today, 2 July 2025, and can be found here.

“For too long there has been a mismatch between what the FCA’s rules say about non-financial misconduct and what has actually been said and done about such behaviour.

“Under these new guidelines, poor personal behaviour will be treated in the same way as financial misconduct, meaning it will need to be shared in regulatory references to the FCA. As such, it will be much harder for individuals to move from firm to firm to escape their disrepute.

“In addition to the implications on individuals, the new rules will help the regulator to spot cultural failings in firms, which in turn helps to identify instances of poor decision making and risk management, both of which are vitally important qualities in this industry.”

For more information on our employment services, please click here

How to Protect Your Reputation During Major Legal Disputes

Posted on: July 3rd, 2025 by Natasha Cox

Director Dominic Holden comments in City AM on how managing media narratives during litigation can be crucial in helping clients protect their reputation and limiting commercial damage.

Dominic’s comments were published in City AM, 3 July 2025, and can be found here.

“Complex and high-stakes litigation often involves serious allegations being made which are then reported on by the press long before any Judgment is handed down. Winning in court is important, but so too is managing the court of public opinion.

“Letting the narrative run against a client in the lead up to trial can be incredibly damaging to senior management, stakeholders and share price. The adverse news (which may have been generated with the aid of the other side’s PR advisors) can even find its way into evidence and be used to support the other side’s arguments.

“Careful use of PR advisers to ensure the client’s position is fairly reflected in the media is a valuable tool to help avoid a client’s claim from being unfairly prejudiced, and to protect the client’s wider commercial interests.”

To find out more about our litigation and dispute resolution services, please click here

Sports Law Spotlight: Lions Warn Rugby Australia Over Potential Contract Breach

Posted on: June 30th, 2025 by Ella Darnell

Senior Associate William Bowyer comments on the dispute between the British and Irish Lions and Rugby Australia, and discusses whether this could escalate into legal action over breach of contract.

Will’s comments were published in City AM, 23 June 2025, and can be found here.

“If, as Lions CEO Ben Calveley states, the formal tour agreement between the British and Irish Lions and Rugby Australia includes a specific clause governing which Test players must be released to participate in fixtures leading up to the Test series, not just the Tests themselves, then the Lions would likely have grounds for a breach of contract claim.

“An international sports dispute would have to be carefully considered from a jurisdictional standpoint and the contract will likely contain a clause dealing with which laws and courts or private arbitration house would consider the issue.

“With major commercial stakes – from broadcast rights to sponsorship and ticketing – both parties are under pressure to find a swift, negotiated resolution, while leveraging their respective contractual positions.”

For more information on our Sports law services, please click here.