“UK Poaching Frenzy Has Firms Locking Lawyers in the ‘Garden’” —

• “US law firms racing to expand in London are hitting a speed bump: local rivals that force lawyers to sit on the sidelines for long stretches before they can jump to new jobs. Freshfields, Ashurst, Clifford Chance and other UK law firms are more frequently using ‘garden leave’ to slow partner exits and hold onto business as poachers from across the Atlantic descend on the city. They’re invoking partnership agreements that allow firms to pay lawyers to stay home for as long as six months to a year before they can start working elsewhere and block them from contacting clients during that time.”
• “‘We have seen an increase recently in the number of firms who are either enforcing a gardening leave period or, even if not putting the partner out into the garden, holding the person to their full contractual notice period which also prevents a quick transition to a new firm,’ said Luke Woodward, a managing director for headhunter Major, Lindsey & Africa.”
• “London’s top law firms are swept up in a new free agent market in which corporate partners are more willing to jump ship — and fetching bigger paychecks — than ever before. They’re trying to beat back deep-pocketed American competitors by making partners think twice about leaving.”
• “Freshfields, which has long had garden leave provisions in its agreements, in the last year sought to impose a six-month restriction on exiting partners, according to three people familiar with the situation. Ashurst, which recently completed a merger with Seattle-founded Perkins Coie, has a three-to six-month garden leave period, said one source familiar with the matter. Clifford Chance’s contract requires partners outside of the US to provide six months notice before leaving and gives the firm the power to sideline those lawyers for that period. The firms declined to comment.”
• “Massive firms based in the US, where laws and ethics rules curb the use of garden leave, are deploying their own defensive tactics at home and abroad. Kirkland & Ellis, among the most active poachers, installed a deferred compensation program designed to keep lawyers at the firm after seeing several London partners decamp for Wall Street firm Paul Weiss. US firms also use notice requirements to drag out lateral moves, but generally cannot stretch them to the longer periods seen in the UK.”
• “The increasing use of garden leave threatens to slow US firms’ expansion efforts in a key market. Law firms hired 319 London partners from competitors in the first half of the year, the second-highest total on record, according to a report by legal recruitment consultancy Edwards Gibson. The most prolific hirers in the city were nearly all US firms — Paul Hastings, Eversheds Sutherland, King & Spalding, and Latham & Watkins — the consultancy said. The 81 partners hired in July and August, a typically slow period, is an all-time high, according to Edwards Gibson.”
• “‘The garden leave idea is for firms to make a play to keep more work,’ said DC-based ethics attorney Hilary Gerzhoy. ‘Certain players are paying insane sums of money for lawyers and lateral movement exploded, as opposed to homegrown developing their own lawyers.'”
• “‘If a Magic Circle firm is losing leading partners to US firms, they’ll want to retain the business and are legally entitled to protect their commercial interests, which is why they put people in the garden,’ Clark said. ‘You can try and keep the clients, but you can’t lock someone out of the market so much so that it actually affects their careers,’ he said.”
• “A UK-based partner at another large US firm said some competitors are now imposing punitive measures, like threatening to withhold partner draws when lawyers head for the exits. But that’s done little to stop the churn as hiring firms so far have been willing to pick up the tab, the partner said, requesting to speak anonymously.”
• “Lawyers are also finding ways to be sprung from their gardens, according to the partner. One route is through clients, which can demand that firms drop leave requirements so that important lawyers can continue to work on their matters.”
• “Some partners are now opting to alert their firms that they are considering going elsewhere without formally putting in their notice, Clark said. The tactic brings risk, but it can be used to extract concessions on garden leave and a clean, swift exit, he said.”

“SRA Faces Tighter Supervision After Jenner & Block Finds ‘Shortcomings‘” —

• “The Legal Services Board (LSB) has decided to tighten its oversight of the Solicitors Regulation Authority following an investigation by law firm Jenner & Block into the watchdog’s handling of the collapse of PM Law. The LSB said that ‘significant performance challenges remain‘ at the SRA in light of its handling of the PM Law situation.”
• “Sheffield-based PM Law, which collapsed in February 2026, is being investigated for ‘sophisticated suspected fraud’ surrounding the removal and misuse of £39.5 million of client funds, the SRA said in April.”
• “The LSB oversees the independent regulators of the legal industry in England and Wales, such as the SRA and the Bar Standards Board.”
• “Jenner & Block was appointed to investigate the SRA’s handling of the matter. In its report, the firm identified shortcomings in the SRA’s use of intelligence across its organisation, its investigation into complex financial risks, and the escalation of serious concerns to decision makers. It argued that the SRA failed to aggregate information across its teams to properly formulate a coherent picture of the situation, which led to failures of oversight. The SRA has been aware of some of these issues since 2023, the report added.”
• “‘The PM Law report makes for difficult reading,’ said Anna Bradley, chair of the SRA board. ’We are particularly sorry for the impact this has had on former clients of the firm and accept we should have done better by them.'”
• “An independent assessment by Berkeley Partnership has also been published regarding the SRA’s progress in meeting previous directions issued by the LSB regarding a similar case from last year.”
• “In 2025 the LSB issued directions to the SRA to better respond to risks and protect client money after British law firm Axiom Ince lost £60 million of client money and collapsed in October 2023. The LSB concluded that ‘there is not sufficient evidence to demonstrate that the changes introduced by the SRA’ have made a difference, and that they will tighten their oversight of the SRA.”
• “The SRA said they have already taken meaningful steps to address some of these reforms in a statement and will continue to make improvements.”

“SRA looking into dozens of reports of AI misuse” —

• “The Solicitors Regulation Authority has received dozens of complaints over the potential misuse of AI, as the profession continues to grapple with how to embrace the technology safely.”
• “A total of 42 reports of AI-related wrongdoing were received between July 2025 and July 2026, the SRA said, with a number of investigations ongoing. Issues under investigation include inaccurate legal citations, supervision and confidentiality.”
  It is also seeing instances of confidential client information being entered into public AI tools such as ChatGPT that lack appropriate safeguards, risking potential breaches of confidentiality and wider data protection requirements. ”
• “SRA executive director of strategy and policy Aileen Armstrong said: ‘AI is already benefiting consumers and legal professionals, and we are increasingly seeing firms use it in innovative ways to improve services and efficiency. However, the use of AI does not change the professional standards expected of solicitors and law firms.”
• “‘Firms and solicitors must have appropriate oversight and controls in place to make sure consumers are receiving high-quality legal services and that our standards are met. Individuals remain responsible for the work they produce and the advice they provide, regardless of whether AI is used, or not.’”
• “On sharing case details with the likes of ChatGPT, the SRA says this will likely breach client confidentiality and as a result, legal professional privilege may be permanently waived and unable to be recovered.”
• “Even where firms have developed or are exploring the use of in-house AI systems, there remains the risk of confidentiality breaches.”
  The Law Society welcomed the guidance and recognised that AI should be used to support and enhance legal practice, not to replace the essential role of solicitors in providing trusted advice to clients.”

“SRA Warning notice: Misuse of AI” —

• “This warning notice is relevant to all firms and individuals we regulate. It relates to the use of Artificial Intelligence (AI) in the provision of legal services by regulated firms and individuals. While it is directed at those we regulate, it is also likely to be relevant to other authorised persons practising within SRA-regulated firms.”
• “Solicitors and law firms are increasingly using AI in their day-to-day work. AI tools have become commonplace in the workplace and our everyday lives. Many solicitors and law firms use AI safely and responsibly, however the SRA has identified a number of cases involving the misuse of AI, particularly relating to the provision of inaccurate information and client confidentiality. It is crucial that you, and those at your firm, are using AI in ways that are compliant with SRA rules.”
• “The SRA takes an outcomes-focused approach to regulation. This means that we set the standards we expect solicitors and firms to meet, but we do not prescribe exactly how those standards should be met in different circumstances. Our outcomes-focused approach means that firms have the freedom to use AI tools and adopt new ways of working, provided they ensure that they meet our standards.”
• “We are concerned about two areas in particular. The first relates to court, or other, documents containing false or incorrect information, including citations, as a result of the misuse of AI. AI tools can produce ‘hallucinations’, generating fictitious cases, references or seemingly factual assertions that may appear convincing despite having no basis in fact.”
• “We are also concerned that those we regulate are not fully considering and appropriately mitigating risks to client confidentiality when using AI systems, particularly in relation to clients’ personal data or other confidential information. Both paid for and free-to-use AI tools may not provide the contractual, and technical safeguards needed to maintain client confidentiality. Firms should understand the safeguards that apply and ensure they are appropriate to the nature and sensitivity of the information being processed.”
  “Issues that we have observed to date include:
  • AI hallucinations in legal work and submissions to the court. We have received reports of potential breaches of our Code of Conduct from senior members of the judiciary. There have also been several instances of solicitors self-reporting where they have relied on AI tools that have generated inaccurate or misleading content.”
  • Instances of confidential client information being entered into public AI tools, risking potential breaches of confidentiality and wider data protection requirements.”
• Evidence of both the above issues have been identified through high-profile court cases. For example, R (on the application of Ayinde) v Haringey LBC [2025] EWHC 1383 (Admin)) highlighted that AI-generated case citations that turned out to be false were submitted to court, drawing public attention to the risks of using unverified AI outputs in submissions.”
• “In relation to client confidentiality, in UK v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2026] UKUT 81 (IAC), the Upper Tribunal commented on the potential for the use of public AI tools to breach confidentiality and legal professional privilege.”
• “We are concerned that some of those operating in the regulated legal sector are not fulfilling their obligations to uphold their duties to the courts, clients and third parties, and are not always following all relevant rules and regulations.”

“AI and liability: UKJT publishes its final statement” —

• “Following a consultation process, the UKJT has now published its final legal statement. Broadly speaking, the UKJT has maintained its earlier positions. For example, it continues to adopt a ‘technology agnostic’ definition of AI: ‘technology that is autonomous’. It also remains of the view that, as ‘a well-developed flexible common law system’, the English legal system is able to ‘provide certainty and predictability in the context of technological innovation’.”
• “The UK Jurisdiction Taskforce (UKJT) has now published a final version of its legal statement on liability for AI harms, following a public consultation earlier this year.”
• “The UKJT’s position remains largely unchanged from its draft statement: in most cases liability for AI harms will be governed by existing principles of contract or tort law. The UKJT expects that English law is sufficiently flexible to accommodate any novel issues arising from AI harms.”
• “However, the final statement does expand on the analysis in some key ways, including: the interplay between AI harms and non-delegable duties of care; the application of the ‘material contribution to damage’ approach to causation; and the availability of contributory negligence as a partial defence to claims arising from AI harms.”
• “It also reframes the approach taken in the draft statement to liability for defamatory statements published by AI.”