Our aim is to start a discussion in the legal profession on the legal impact of algorithms on firms, software developers, insurers, and lawyers. In a longer paper, we consider whether algorithms should have a legal personality, an issue which will likely provoke an intense debate between those who believe in regulation and those who believe that ‘code is law’. In law, companies have the rights and obligations of a person. Algorithms are rapidly emerging as artificial persons: a legal entity that is not a human being but for certain purposes is legally considered to be a natural person. Intelligent algorithms will increasingly require formal training, testing, verification, certification, regulation, insurance, and status in law.

A recent Legal Futures article reported that the number complaints involving use of social media by barristers is increasing. The BSB have warned that “as social media and the internet become more prominent in our daily lives, there is an increasing need for barristers to be very careful about what they post whether in their professional or personal lives”. While inappropriate use of social media isn’t anything new, what struck me when reading that paragraph is that, for barristers, I would argue, there shouldn’t be a defining line between the personal and professional. As a barrister, you are your own USP, your personal brand is everything.

This year APIL’s Injury Prevention Day falls as we anticipate a return of the Civil Liability Bill in the upcoming parliamentary session, as well as the resurrection of plans to increase the small claims court limit. APIL originally instigated Injury Prevention Day in 2015 on the third Wednesday of August as an occasion to highlight what our association is about, and to give people a better understanding of our values. A key part of APIL’s remit is to promote safety standards and reduce avoidable harm. This year, Injury Prevention Day and the agenda for reform are connected.

Many fear that publishing prices could ignite a race to the bottom as firms try and outdo their competitors’ fees. Premium prices don’t guarantee premium service but, if managed wrongly, a price war could compromise standards of service with people simply selecting the cheapest option. While fears of a ‘race to the bottom’ are valid, they may also be overstated. Price transparency exists in nearly all aspects of our lives, yet people still choose to pay a higher price for a higher quality of service. If the race to the bottom was a valid concern, there would be no Waitrose customers, only Aldi.

Last month the Bar’s regulator, the Bar Standards Board, published its research with people who have used barristers’ services during family legal proceedings. It was published under the headline “Barristers are serving family law clients well, says new BSB research”. One publication for solicitors clearly got the wrong version of the press release, because its headline on the day of publication said “Public considers barristers ‘too expensive’ for family advice, regulator finds”. There ought not to be anything in the BSB report that threatens the solicitors’ profession. The Bar remains a largely referral-based profession. Public access is still a minority activity in family law – and this is unlikely to change.