Month: December 2025

Posted on

Thirty firms win roles in revamped £820m government legal panel – with three new appointments

The Crown Commercial Service (CCS) has announced its final legal panel, worth up to £820m, with a total of 30 law firms making the cut – including three that did not have roles on the previous panel.

This year saw a shake-up to the formula, with the former legal services, rail legal services, and trade law panels replaced by a single panel to cover more than 60 legal specialisms.

The panel will be used by all central government departments, and was created by CCS in partnership with the Government Legal Department, the Department for Business and Trade and the Department for Transport.

It will run for three years, with the option to extend by a further 12 months, and is currently due to end on 29 September 2028. The previous panels were in place from 2021.

This year, the panel has been divided into five separate lots, with Lot 4, covering trade law, split into three separate sub-categories: trade and investment negotiations, international trade disputes and international investment disputes.

The remaining lots are core legal services (Lot 1), major projects and complex advice (Lot 2), finance and high risk/innovation (Lot 3) and rail legal services (Lot 5).

The estimated maximum value of each lot ranges from £275m for core legal services to £30m for trade and investment negotiations.

Which firms won roles?

While the rail legal services lot contains the same firms from the 2021 rail panel, the other panels include notable changes.

Most significant is the new international investment disputes lot, worth £90m, which has no analogue in the 2021 trade panel.

Among the seven firms appointed to this lot are A&O Shearman, Eversheds Sutherland and Herbert Smith Freehills Kramer.

A&O Shearman did not appear on the previous panel at all. Eversheds Sutherland and HSF Kramer, meanwhile, did not appear on the previous trade panels, but were each appointed to the 2021 panel under other categories.

HSF Kramer has further broadened its portfolio of government work with appointments to four lots in total, with showings in major projects and complex advice, finance and high risk/innovation, and international investment disputes, in addition to its existing place in the rail legal services.

As well as A&O Shearman, Trowers & Hamlins and Brodies also won roles on the panel after not being included in 2021, with one lot for each firm.

Of the returning firms, Dentons has been awarded a place on six of the seven lots, the most of any other firm. TLT, Ashurst and Herbert Smith Freehills Kramer were appointed to four lots each, while Burges Salmon, DLA Piper, Hogan Lovells and Clifford Chance were each appointed to three lots.

Among the firms not reappointed to any lot are BCLP, McDermott Will & Schulte, WilmerHale, Simmons & Simmons, and Howes Percival.

A number of internationally headquartered firms were also taken off of this year’s trade panel.

In addition, the Nuclear Decommissioning Authority (NDA) has also announced its new £5m legal panel earlier this week. The NDA is a non-departmental public body which leads the clean-up of hazardous materials and highly-radioactive waste at the UK’s earliest nuclear sites. The panel will run for one year and five months, until the end of March 2027.

Nine firms were awarded spots: Addleshaw Goddard, Burges Salmon, Dentons, DLA Piper, DWF, Gowling WLG, Mills & Reeve, Pinsent Masons and TLT.

theresa.hargreaves@legal500.com

Crown Commercial Service panel:

Lot 1: Core legal services

Lot 2: Major projects and complex advice

Lot 3: Finance and high risk/innovation

Lot 4a: Trade and investment negotiations

Lot 4b: International trade disputes

Lot 4c: International investment disputes

Lot 5: Rail legal services

  • Addleshaw Goddard
  • Ashurst
  • Burges Salmon
  • Dentons
  • Eversheds Sutherland
  • Herbert Smith Freehills Kramer
  • Linklaters
  • Osborne Clarke
Posted on

Hargreaves Lansdown hires Direct Line GC as new chief legal officer

Hargreaves Lansdown has appointed a new head of legal, hiring Direct Line GC Angela Yotov as chief legal officer and company secretary.

She will join the company in May, replacing Craig Diamond, who was appointed interim CLO in March of this year. Diamond has been at the company since 2014 and has held the head of legal role since 2015.

Yotov has extensive experience in the financial services sector, and joins the UK-based investment platform from Direct Line. She joined the insurance company in February of this year, and stepped down in July, after Aviva completed its £3.7bn acquisition of Direct Line.

Before this, Yotov served as group GC at banking group Close Brothers for nearly six years. Before that, she spent more than three years as GC at peer-to-peer lender RateSetter, after nearly a decade as legal counsel for Barclays’ investment bank and wealth and investment management divisions.

In March, Hargreaves Lansdown was taken private by a consortium of private equity firms including CVC Capital Partners, Nordic Capital and a subsidiary of Abu Dhabi’s sovereign wealth fund, in a transaction valued at £5.4bn.

In a statement on Yotov’s hire, interim CEO, Richard Flint said: ‘We’re extremely fortunate to have someone of Angela’s calibre joining the team, with her deep experience in organisations delivering and leading through change both in the public and private sectors.’

He continued: ‘Angela has managed complex regulatory environments in financial services, while building and developing high-performing teams.’

Flint was made interim CEO in August, following the departure of Dan Olley, who left shortly after the acquisition.

Of her move, Yotov said: ‘I am delighted to be joining Hargreaves Lansdown as Chief Legal Officer and Company Secretary at such an exciting time for the business. As the UK market leader in its sector, Hargreaves Lansdown has built a strong reputation for integrity, innovation, and putting clients first. It’s a privilege to be part of a company that has an important purpose, making it easy for people to save and invest for a better future.’

theresa.hargreaves@legal500.com

Posted on

‘A slippery slope in one direction’ – white collar partners raise concerns over plans to cut jury trials

White collar partners have warned of the ‘slippery slope’ facing the UK criminal justice system, following the news that jury trials will be scrapped for crimes that carry a likely sentence of less than three years.

The move, announced by justice secretary David Lammy yesterday (2 December), is aimed at reducing the backlog of cases in courts across England and Wales, and will also apply to ‘exceptionally technical and lengthy’ fraud and financial cases.

The backlog, which currently sits at just under 78,000, is expected to reach 100,000 by 2028. While the measures are less radical than previously expected, with earlier reports suggesting that it would extend to crimes with a likely sentence of up to five years, partners have expressed concerns over their implications.

White & Case London white collar head Neill Blundell warned that the move could mean that ‘the fairness of the process would be prejudiced’, and said other measures could be taken to address the backlog.

‘It’s a slippery slope in one direction,’ he said. ‘Once you go down that route, there’s an erosion of fairness in the process. There are other areas which could be concentrated on first, such as investing in court infrastructure, increasing judges’ sitting days, and improving training for prosecutors on presenting cases. All of these issues have come about as a result of vast underfunding over an extended period of time.’

With regard to technical fraud and financial crime cases, Lammy stated that ‘they place undue pressure on jurors to sit for months – a significant interference with their personal and professional lives.’

However, Mishcon de Reya white collar crime and investigations head Johanna Walsh disagreed with removing juries for such cases, pushing back on the suggestion that they are ‘too complex’ for juries to deal with.

‘In terms of the big Serious Fraud Office cases that I’ve defended, it is clear from the calibre of the notes coming from the jury that they have a good understanding of the issues, no matter how complex,’ she said.’ Lawyers need to be able to – and can – distil those issues so that they are understandable for juries.’

Walsh concurred with Blundell that other options should be considered. ‘Better resourced prosecutors, more judges, better availability of courts, would all help to reduce the backlog,’ she said. ‘Robust case management, particularly of the prosecution in complex financial crime cases, is really important.’

Kingsley Napley white collar and financial crime head Louise Hodges, who chairs the City of London Law Society’s committee on corporate crime and corruption, agreed with the view that juries are capable of dealing with complex cases, adding that they also help to ensure fair treatment for ethnic minority defendants.

‘The empirical evidence demonstrates that juries are representative, effective and capable of handling complexity, and they remain the one stage at which minority ethnic defendants do not face disproportionate outcomes,’ she said. ‘Any restriction on this right must be supported by compelling evidence and we have seen none. Both the causes of the current backlog and the solutions to resolve it lie elsewhere.’

Announcing the plans in Parliament, Lammy said that serious offences such as rape, murder and robbery would still be heard before a jury, but that removing juries from hearing non-serious offences could speed up the process by 20%.

However, Walsh asserted that ‘delay is embedded in the criminal justice system’.

‘The delay is already baked into the system – what is required is better resourcing at all stages from investigation through to trial,’ she said. ‘I can’t see that removing the right to trial by jury will address this.’

The reforms follow a review of the courts conducted by former senior judge Sir Brian Leveson. The first part of his recommendations was released this July, with the second half expected by the end of the year.

kate.peacock@legal500.com

Posted on

‘Status quo is not an option’ – leading fin reg lawyers gather to debate future enforcement challenges

Private practice litigators, barristers and in-house lawyers gathered in the City’s Minster Building for Legal Business and Legal 500’s annual Financial, Regulatory and Disputes summit on 1 December.

The half-day event, sponsored by 3 Verulam Buildings (3VB), Dentons and Penningtons Manches Cooper, covered a range of issues, including the rise of UK class actions, an increasingly assertive Financial Conduct Authority (FCA) and the ins and outs of Upper Tribunal Proceedings.

Commercial litigator Catherine Gibuad KC, of headline sponsor 3VB, opened the morning with an overview of the current state of affairs in enforcement proceedings in the financial services space, outlining some recent significant decisions made by the Supreme Court, particularly those relating to fiduciary duties.

Dentons then kicked off the first panel, with an engaging session titled ‘Navigating Class Actions: Strategies and Challenges in Defending UK Collective Litigation’. The session, which was moderated by London disputes partner Tom Leyand, explored the group litigation landscape in the UK, including some of the limitations when it comes to delivering justice. He was joined by fellow disputes partners Tom Hanson and Felicity Ewing, who leads Dentons’ financial services disputes team, to discuss successes in collective action cases since the UK competition regime was introduced.

Ten years on from the introduction of the regime, the trio considered whether the UK competition regime has evolved as the government intended and whether it enables claimants to receive fair compensation. They also briefly addressed some of the recent public disputes between funders and law firms, when outcomes have not aligned with expectations.

The session was followed by a lively debate chaired by 3VB’s Saima Hanif KC titled PRA/FCA Enforcement in 2025 – Key Decisions, Trends and Future Outlook. Hanif was joined on stage by Anthony Monaghan, director of retail and regulatory investigations at the FCA, Claire Cross, a white collar partner at Corker Binning and Katie Stephen, co-head of Norton Rose Fulbright’s contentious financial services group.Hanif moderated an animated discussion that started with Monaghan setting out the regulator’s more assertive and expedited approach to investigations, as well as the increased intervention powers granted to the regulator through VREQs and OIREQ interventions.

The group moved on to discuss non-financial misconduct and some of the inconsistencies in firms’ approaches to these issues. The session ended with discussion around what’s next on the horizon, with market abuse, ESG, consumer duty and crypto all flagged as topics to watch over the coming years.

Following a short coffee break, Penningtons took to the stage for a discussion titled ‘Beyond Compliance: Delivering Better Outcomes and Protections for Consumers’. The session saw managing associate Sarah Mant moderate a panel that included disputes partner Michael Brown, employment partner Tom Walker and senior disputes consultant Teja Picton-Howell.The session kicked off by looking at the impact of non-financial misconduct in the boardroom, with Walker discussing the recent focus on psychological safety in the workplace and how this should be driven from the top down, with Picton-Howell then moving to discuss the Consumer Duty Regulation and Brown outlining some of the upcoming changes to the Financial Ombudsman Service (FOS) and the FCA, particularly in relation to the UK’s financial redress scheme.

After Penningtons, headline sponsor 3VB returned to the stage, with Adam Temple leading a fireside chat with Kingsley Napley financial service partner Jill Lorimer on the ‘Nuts and Bolts of the Upper Tribunal Proceedings’. The discussion covered everything from privacy applications for those subject to FCA enforcement, through to the FCA’s shifting approach to disclosure and its obligation to call relevant witnesses.

The final session saw Legal Business editorial director Georgina Stanley joined on stage by reputation counsel Byfield’s joint managing director Michael Evans. The fireside chat explored the reputational risks financial institutions face from litigation and regulatory investigations. From how to handle sensitive non-financial misconduct claims, through to the challenges posed by ever-faster legal reporting driven by AI and greater transparency, Evans talked through some of the common PR mistakes companies make when facing a crisis and how to do it better, emphasising the importance of being prepared.

To conclude the morning, Gibaud KC returned to the stage, offering final reflections on the sessions of the day and highlighting why ‘status quo is not an option’ when it comes to enforcement in the financial services space.

theresa.hargreaves@legal500.com

Posted on

‘Nobody really understood what I was going through’ – the in-house push for better IVF support

‘Nobody really understood what I was going through, and they were nervous to discuss it with me.’

This is an all too common experience of women going through IVF, and while many people are aware of what IVF does, there’s little knowledge of just how extensive and invasive the procedure really is. This, coupled with the hectic schedule of life as a general counsel, leaves many women feeling alone, during what is already an emotionally taxing time.

That’s why a women’s GC network has released a report outlining what employers can do to support employees going through IVF.

The report, ‘In Vitro Fertilisation – A compassionate guide for Employers.’ was compiled by The Eagle Club, a women-only forum for GCs and C-suite members around the world, founded by Lesley Wan.

Eighteen members of the group, many of whom have undergone IVF themselves, drafted the guide, which outlines the side effects of the treatment, logistical impacts, and potential policy points for companies to consider.

The initiative has been shared among the group, whose membership totals more than 500, with each member encouraged to share the report with their companies in an effort to push for dedicated IVF policies.

From blood tests, hormone medication, and egg collection to the often-disappointing news couples face, the changes are aimed at supporting employees navigating the challenging journey, without requiring them to disclose personal information on their progress.

‘It was very stressful to manage all the work and meetings without telling my manager what was going on’

A common difficulty that several GCs who have undergone IVF mentioned is juggling medical appointments with the demanding nature of their role.

‘GCs are in a unique position that their presence and advice are often needed on an ad hoc and urgent basis,’ says one GC. ‘IVF policies should ensure that managers and colleagues understand how time-consuming IVF treatments are and that GCs might not be present all the time.’

Another explains: ‘GCs end up involved in so many different things and are often brought in on time sensitive situations. It can leave you feeling you’re letting your stakeholders/internal clients down by being more absent.’

Appointments throughout the process ‘can range from every few days to twice a day, often with little/no advance warning,’ the report explains, with the bulk of the regular appointments in the 10 to 14-day period leading up to egg collection.

Without any considerations in place, employees are left in a difficult position, having to either juggle a busy work schedule with frequent hospital appointments or disclose personal information to their managers and colleagues about their progress in the IVF process.

‘I needed a great deal of flexibility to be able to arrive late, duck out during the day or take days off on short notice over each round of IVF,’ shares one GC. ‘I didn’t need this to be forever, but as needed. It was disappointing that in order to achieve this, I needed to explain the IVF process and what particular stage I was at to several people. With a policy in place, I would not have had to do so.’

Another GC explains that while her company had generous fertility benefits when she was going through IVF, there were no dedicated IVF policies in place, leaving her feeling that she should not bring up the topic with her manager: ‘It was very stressful to manage all the work and meetings, with having to take 2-3 hours almost every second day to go to the hospital without telling my manager what was going on.’

‘The support an initiative such as this offers will be invaluable to anyone who is dealing with this silently’

While GCs often found that their companies and managers were supportive once they discovered what the GCs were going through, the report recommends implementing policies from the outset, which will give employees peace of mind that their employer will support them.

Among a number of suggested policies, the report recommends flexible working arrangements, time off for medical appointments, a flexible approach to sick leave, a phased return to work after treatment, and limited or no work-related travel around key times.

Other key points include various health insurance and private healthcare options that can cover, in whole or in part, the costs of IVF.

Furthermore, the report suggests any policy relating to IVF should be gender-neutral, to recognise that most partners will also need to attend regular hospital appointments to support their spouse, and can also be involved in the process through sperm collection and shared disappointment after an unsuccessful round.

‘As someone who went through multiple cycles for almost a decade, during most of my senior career to date, I can’t express how much I welcome this report’ shares one GC. ‘The support that an initiative such as this offers will be invaluable to anyone who is dealing with this silently.’

Another GC, who went through four rounds of IVF explains: ‘Having an IVF policy in place will encourage employees to confide in their managers and colleagues, which will certainly reduce the stress of feeling that you have to be present all the time for work.’

Since the report’s launch, GCs have been sharing the report widely. One GC says that she has already shared the guide with both current and former employers, with an overwhelmingly positive reception. ‘The Head of HR of my current company already said that this was a great initiative and she would review the guidance and discuss internally whether the company should implement an IVF policy.’

‘We can only have change if we talk about things more. It’s still sometimes regarded as taboo’

Another GC has shared the report with the employee relations and human resources teams at their company, a multinational tech business, with the teams confirming that the report will be shared with external consultants as part of a global benchmarking review exercise.

The report has also gained traction outside the in-house environment. A managing associate at a large international firm spoke with Legal Business about the positive impact a report like this will have. She explains that while solid policies are already in place at a number of firms, including hers, being able to speak about these policies is one of the best solutions.

‘We can only have change if we talk about things more,’ she says. ‘It’s still sometimes regarded as a taboo, and I think the more we can talk about it, and the more that men feel that they can talk about it, the better. It is such a game changer to say okay, look, these are some steps forwards that we should be thinking about everywhere and as a whole.’

theresa.hargreaves@legal500.com

Posted on

A&O Shearman’s first post-merger accounts reveal scale of pension deficit and partner capital injections

A&O Shearman has filed its first set of accounts as a merged firm, shedding light on the financial implications of the tie-up, including a sharp hike in partner capital contributions and a near-£200m pension deficit.

The LLP accounts – which cover the 12 months after legacy Allen & Overy and Shearman & Sterling’s transatlantic union went live on 1 May 2024 – include specific details about Shearman’s pension deficit, a factor widely cited as a stumbling block in the US firm’s attempts to get a merger through.

While pre-merger accounts for the 2023-24 financial year show legacy A&O had a pension surplus of £22m, the latest accounts for 2024-25 reveal that the combined firm now has a surplus of £27.8m and a deficit of £220.3m, equating to a net defined benefit pension deficit of £192.5m.

Shearman’s pension liabilities were reported to have been a sticking point in the firm’s earlier merger talks with Hogan Lovells, which were called off in early 2023.

The latest LLP accounts also state that between May 2025 and April 2026, contributions of $20.1m are expected to be made to the unfunded retirement plan for former Shearman partners.

The merged firm’s LLP accounts also highlight a surge in partner capital contributions over the last financial year, with the total paid in by partners more than doubling to £421.3m, up from £208.9m in A&O’s last year pre-merger.

Prior to the tie-up, A&O had approximately 600 partners, while Shearman had around 170. The increase in partner numbers, combined with the merged firm’s move to an all-equity partnership model, will have significantly contributed to the rise in capital contributions.

One partnership expert suggested a number of other potential factors. ‘They could need a financial buffer – partner capital allows them to do that. Something as significant as a merger like this would have cost the firm a lot of money. They have lots of offices around the world that have to be integrated,’ they said. ‘There’s also the tax cost of the merger – it may have resulted in a tax charge arising, and between US and UK firms this can be quite significant.’

Another expressed surprise at the size of the increase. ‘Firms generally try to keep capital relatively stable – it’s a huge capital contribution; doubling it is massive.’

Looking beyond pensions and capital contributions, the accounts state that revenue at the combined firm rose by 33% over the year to £2.86bn, up from £2.15bn, marginally down from the £2.9bn headline figure A&O Shearman announced earlier this year. Profit before tax nudged up from £1.046bn to £1.081bn.

Breaking revenue down by geography, the Shearman merger helped to drive Stateside turnover from £280.1m to £706.6m, meaning the US now accounts for 25% of firmwide revenue, up from 13%.

The firm saw strong growth in the UK over the year, with revenues up 20% from £818.7m to £981.4m, while the APAC and Middle East & Africa regions both saw revenue rise 16% over the year. Continental Europe was the slowest growing region at 9%.

Operating costs also increased, largely due to a combination of higher staff headcount and salaries, as well as costs associated with the merger.

Driven in large part by the growth delivered by the Shearman merger, average employee headcount rose 15% from 6,077 to 6,961, and with it, total staff costs increased from £858.6m to £1.08bn, a 26% hike. Other operational expenses grew by 17.8% to £446.4m, up from £379m in 2024.

Other details contained in the accounts include pay to ‘key management personnel’, which comprises the senior partner and managing partner, the heads of the main global practice groups and the support directors. Collectively, this group took home £43.6m in their share of the profit and salaries.

This equates to an rise of 164% from last year’s equivalent of £16.5m, although it is understood that this relates in part to the larger size of the management team in the wake of the merger.

A&O Shearman is now led by senior partner Khalid Garousha, global managing partner Herve Ekue and US chair Adam Hakki; Garousha and Hakki also co-chair the firm’s board and executive committee.

The board comprises the senior partner and managing partner, six independent and elected partner directors, and up to four co-opted members.

A&O Shearman board in full

  • Parya Badie, London, insurance and capital markets partner, chair of the audit committee
  • Tim Conduit, London, energy and infrastructure partner
  • Roger Lui, Hong Kong, financial institutions sector lead and global co-head of the banking sector
  • Peter Myners, Luxembourg, M&A, corporate and private capital partner
  • Ken Rivlin, New York, co-head of the environmental and climate law group and co-head of the international trade group
  • Alice Englehart, London, disputes partner
  • Lisa Brill, New York, co-head of real estate.
  • Lona Nallengara, New York corporate, finance and regulatory partner

A&O Shearman executive committee in full

  • Diana Billik, Paris, US securities partner, regional co-head of US capital markets and global ECM
  • David Broadley, London, corporate finance partner, global co-head of M&A
  • Denise Gibson, London, debt finance partner, UK managing partner and co-chair of the London executive committee
  • Astrid Krueger, Germany head of private equity
  • David Lee, London, global co-head of energy, natural resources and infrastructure
  • Doreen Lilienfeld, New York, employment partner, co-managing partner of the US.
  • Vicki Liu, Hong Kong, finance partner, co-managing partner of Greater China and managing partner of Hong Kong
  • Stephen Lloyd, London, global co-head of private equity
  • Fredric Sosnick, New York, global co-head of restructuring

eliza.winter@legal500.com

Additional reporting by Kate Peacock.

Posted on

‘Anything that begins with admin is at risk’ – the pressures fuelling firms’ business services cuts

Recent weeks have seen a flurry of major law firms confirm plans to restructure their paralegal ranks and business services teams, citing a range of factors including advances in AI and tech, and a need to drive efficiency to meet client needs.   

Although the roles at risk are different, the factors putting pressure on both paralegal and business services jobs are similar, leading some firms to rethink how legal work is being delivered and who delivers it.  

Business services has borne the brunt of the pressure in recent weeks, with a number of major firms reassessing the functions that need to remain in high-cost locations like London, and those that can be relocated or redesigned. 

Clyde & Co last week confirmed that it is undergoing a consultation with support staff across the Asia-Pacific region, with redundancies expected ahead of the opening of a new business services centre in Manila.  

In a statement, the firm said the new centre would build on ‘improvements already introduced’ by the firm’s global business services centres in Kansas City and Glasgow, which opened in 2018 and 2015 respectively. The bases, which employ 165 staff between them, provide support across finance, HR, IT and administration.

A Clydes spokesperson said: ‘As a global business and a forward-thinking firm, we continuously review how we can optimise our operations to ensure we meet client expectations and adapt to a changing market.’ While the firm declined to provide specific figures on how many roles may be made redundant, Clydes acknowledged that this would be ‘a challenging time for those who may be affected’.   

News of Clydes’ plans came after it emerged that Clifford Chance is set to cut around 10% of its London business services workforce, amounting to an estimated 50 redundancies, with a further 35 roles set to be reshaped.  

The planned cuts span finance, HR and IT, with the trigger understood to be the firm reassessing the roles that could be performed more efficiently, or at least as efficiently, outside London.  

CC has a paralegal-staffed support hub in Newcastle, acquired from Carillion in 2018, as well as service delivery operations in Delhi, Hyderabad and Warsaw.  

Other firms thinking along similar lines around business services roles include Fieldfisher, which last month confirmed that it is in consultation with staff as it moves to transform its Belfast office into a business services centre. The firm did not comment on numbers but relocations to the office, which opened in 2018, and redundancies are expected as it aims to remain ‘competitive and sustainable for the future’.

Structural change

Montresor Recruitment senior director Francesca Milton believes the consultations reflect a wider pattern of structural change, rather than short-term cost-cutting. ‘Business services teams have grown quickly over the last decade as part of long-term planned restructurings, but firms are now looking carefully at how they can do it better – what work really needs to be done in a City office, versus what could be centralised or done by tech,’ she comments.  

Moving business services roles to lower-cost locations is, of course, nothing new, with nearshoring or offshoring moves during the 2010s including Herbert Smith and Allen & Overy opening in Belfast in 2011, Ashurst’s Glasgow launch in 2013, Latham & Watkins and Freshfields moving into Manchester in 2015, and Taylor Wessing opening in Liverpool in 2018.

However, recent developments demonstrate that the physical location of staff is only one side of the coin. The other is the acceleration of technology such as AI, with firms increasingly open to how new tech can help them reshape operations. 

‘What you’re seeing now is firms starting to explore whether AI can make a difference; whether it can reduce fixed costs’

BCLP announced this spring that it was undertaking a business modernisation programme that will impact approximately 8% of the firm’s global business services population. Global COO Trevor Varnes said the firm was investing in ‘market-leading technology’ and ‘leveraging digital solutions’ to ‘enhance operational efficiency’, while CEO Steve Baumer highlighted the need for ‘a stronger, more agile firm’.  

DWF confirmed a consultation with 108 commercial services employees in April,  placing them at risk of redundancy as it sought to cut costs, citing a need to respond to the ‘economic environment and ensuring our teams reflect the changing needs of our clients’.  

One partner at a UK firm suggests that pricing pressures in an increasingly competitive legal market are accelerating change. ‘What you’re seeing now is UK firms starting to explore whether AI can make a difference; whether it can reduce fixed costs, particularly people, to keep margins up and stop key talent moving to the American firms. That is driving a huge amount of behaviour.’

‘Anything that begins with “admin” is at risk. If you can take two people out of a team of five and replace them with AI that supplements the remaining three, what’s the cost saving? How much does that support margins? And does that keep us competitive in this whole hunt for talent?’ the partner adds.

Paralegal centres under scrutiny

The increasing adoption of AI and other new technology across the legal industry is also expected to see paralegal and legal support roles come under scrutiny, as evidenced by the news that Freshfields is set to scale back its Manchester paralegal hub.

Up to 19 roles are set to be affected as part of a restructuring of its legal support function that kicked off in September. The move comes just over a decade after the magic circle firm launched in Manchester, relocating hundreds of support jobs to the lower-cost hub.  

In the context of a ‘fast-changing legal market’ a Freshfields spokesperson  cited ‘investing in technology, building key skills in-house and adapting [their] model to meet future client needs’ as reasons for the proposed cuts.  

‘Entry-level paralegal work has fallen off a cliff’  

According to Montresor’s Milton, this shift is visible across the market. ‘Entry-level paralegal work – first-line research, document production, the admin layer – has fallen off a cliff.’  

Despite the pressure, she believes that it is not a simple contraction: ‘Paralegal roles aren’t going to disappear, but they will evolve. While routine tasks will reduce, higher-value project work will still rely heavily on experienced paralegals. The most employable will be tech-literate senior paralegals who are open to new tools.’  

According to one London partner, paralegal centres are likely to come under mounting pressure to become early adopters of AI which, in turn, could put more roles at risk.

‘Firms are giving paralegal hubs the technology and saying: “Show us how you can use this, so we can prove its worth”. The paralegal centres will have winners and losers. They’re winners because they’ll be the first properly upskilled in deploying AI for legal functionality. But they’re at risk because the very success of AI may reduce the need for large paralegal centres in places like the UK.’ 

A&O Shearman’s global head of advanced delivery and solutions, Angela Clist, disagrees with this stance, pointing out that the firm is continuing to recruit paralegal roles in its Belfast hub.

‘Our model is not based on high turnover – we see it as a serious career path. We’re hiring top graduates across the UK for Belfast – it is about adding value at a higher level.’

‘These roles are important for business – we’re responding to client demands for more for less,’ she adds. 

Her position aligns with several other firms contacted by Legal Business, which said they had no plans to reduce support staff headcount, with some, such as Kennedys and McDermott Will & Schulte, noting that business services headcount had been rising steadily in recent years.  

eliza.winter@legal500.com

Posted on

Colgate-Palmolive Western Europe legal director Barbara Naouri on resilience, AI and assessing external counsel

After working at some of France’s top private practice firms, Barbara Naouri moved in-house with Sephora and then Colgate-Palmolive as legal director and compliance officer for Western Europe. Here, she discusses managing a legal department through global uncertainty, how AI is affecting legal work, and what she looks for in external advisers

We are living through an increasingly uncertain global business environment. How do you lead your legal team during periods of instability?  

In times of instability or crisis, I see the role of the legal team as creating clarity and stability in an environment that often feels unpredictable. The first step is always to quickly map out the legal risks, looking at our regulatory obligations, contracts and potential liabilities, so leadership knows exactly where the most urgent issues lie. This helps the company to act decisively without overlooking compliance. Though it is crucial here to align with the business. Legal strategy must align with the company goals.   

Second and equally important is governance. As legal director, I ensure decision-making processes are clear, documented and defensible for Colgate. In a crisis, choices are made quickly, but proper records of ‘why’ and ‘how’ we acted will protect the organisation later from disputes or regulatory challenges. I also stress to teams the importance of documenting our decisions as a group; this protects us legally and shows accountability.    

Third, communication is another area where I involve the wider team at Colgate. I work with colleagues in communications, HR and other business teams to make sure our messages to regulators, employees and partners are aligned and transparent. Teamwork at Colgate is key and helps us avoid misunderstandings and maintain trust even under pressure.   

Finally, I see value in reflection. After any crisis, I encourage a joint review so we can capture lessons learned and refine our processes. By approaching challenges together, we not only stay compliant but also strengthen our collective resilience. Indeed, once the immediate pressure eases, I prioritise learning within the legal team. Reviewing what worked and what did not ensures we strengthen our playbooks and are better prepared for the future.   

I believe resilience comes from foresight, integrity and adaptability; this is even more true in a legal team.  

What are the main impacts that AI usage has had on your work? 

AI has already begun to reshape how our legal team works, though in very practical and carefully managed ways. One of our most tangible achievements has been building an internal legal chatbot from scratch. This tool allows other departments to ask straightforward legal or procedural questions, or quickly locate internal policies and templates. It has reduced the number of repetitive queries directed to the legal team and freed up time for us to focus on more complex, strategic matters.   

In parallel, Colgate has invested in AI-powered search tools that support tasks such as document comparison, summarisation, and even creating slides, videos or visuals to support our work. These solutions help us move faster in negotiations, marketing and advisory work, while maintaining accuracy and consistency. To encourage our employees to join the AI wave, Colgate organises AI bootcamps, AI coffees and sharing knowledge sessions, including AI guidelines and playbooks to help everybody use and find the necessary tools.  

In our legal team, we also decided to invest in legal case law search tools enhanced by AI, which improve both speed and precision when researching evolving areas such as unfair competition.   

Importantly, we also take the governance side very seriously. At Colgate, we have an AI registry to track all AI tools in use, ensuring transparency, accountability and alignment with both corporate standards and local regulations. The legal function also plays a central role in this process, guiding the ethical use of AI and sensitising teams to the requirements of the EU AI Act. In this way, at Colgate, we are not just adopting the AI technology but also embedding the right governance and compliance framework around it.   

What factors influence your decision to use external legal services versus handling matters in-house, and what criteria are used to evaluate the performance of law firms? 

The in-house legal team can effectively handle  many complex matters, leveraging our expertise and understanding of the business. External counsel is engaged selectively, mainly for niche areas such as highly specialised regulatory topics that demand unique skills or jurisdiction-specific knowledge. Their performance is assessed against clear criteria, including subject-matter expertise, responsiveness, cost-effectiveness, communication clarity, and alignment with strategic objectives.

Ultimately, we value partners who not only ensure legal compliance but can deliver practical, outcome-driven solutions that support broader business goals.