Pre-action Conduct

This Practice note provides an overview of the money laundering regime that applies to lawyers pursuant to the Money Laundering Regulations 2007 (2007 Regulations). The 2007 Regulations came into force on 15 December 2007 and replace the Money Laundering Regulations 2003 (2003 Regulations). They bring the 2005 Directive on money laundering into effect in the UK. The 2007 Regulations introduce new requirements and vary requirements that were in the 2003 Regulations. In particular, the 2007 Regulations require that: The lawyer is able to identify the beneficial owner of client trusts, companies and partnerships. The lawyer applies customer due diligence measures and monitors client activities according to a risk-based approach, applying less stringent procedures for low risk situations and more stringent prcedures in higher risk situations. Training for staff is both regular and covers terrorist financing issues. Lawyers are also to have regard to the Law Society's anti-money laundering practice note published on 29 October 2009, and the Solicitors Regulation Authority's warning card on money laundering published in April 2009. Property lawyers should also take account of the joint Land Registry and Law Society practice note on property and registration fraud published in September 2010.

Engagement letters are used by accountants, investment banks and other advisers to limit their liability when giving advice. This note deals with the issues that arise when limiting liability and summarises the provisions most commonly found in engagement letters.

Following our detailed review of the Final Report of Jackson LJ's Review of Civil Litigation Costs, we have considered how easily and quickly each of his recommendations (including those not formally presented as recommendations) might be implemented. Our views are set out in this note and it links to a separate note dealing with recommendations for specific types of litigation. Note that this document only contains our suggestions. Various factors will ultimately determine what will happen to each of Jackson LJ's recommendations. In November 2010, the Ministry of Justice launched a consultation, Proposals for reform of civil litigation funding and costs in England and Wales, which sought views on implementation of what it believed were the priority proposals in Jackson LJ's final report. (Section 3 of the consultation set out the recommendations not being considered.)The government published its response to the consultation on 29 March 2011. It intends to implement almost all of Jackson LJ's primary recommendations, including abolishing the recoverability of success fees in conditional fee agreements and the recoverability of after the event insurance premiums. See further, Legal update, Government response to Jackson LJ's recommendations on reforming civil litigation costs and funding. A bill was laid before Parliament on 21 June 2011 which would implement those key reforms (see Legal update, Bill to implement Jackson reforms laid before Parliament) and the CPRC

This note provides an overview of the pre-action protocol for possession claims based on rent arrears predominantly dealt with in the county court.

The Solicitors Regulation Authority has issued a new Handbook, including a new Code of Conduct, which is prompted by the possibility of Alternative Business Structures (ABSs) opening for business from 6 October 2011. The Handbook is being introduced on a phased basis, beginning in August 2011. The key implementation date was 6 October 2011. This practice note explains the background to the new Handbook and its structure. For information on how the new Handbook and Code of Conduct will affect common aspects of property transactions, see Practice note, SRA Handbook 2011 and Code of Conduct: issues for property lawyers.

This note examines the court rules and the powers of the court in relation to mediation in England and Wales. It also contains an analysis of when the court has considered it reasonable to refuse to mediate and where it has penalised parties for an unreasonable refusal to mediate.