Legal publisher LexisNexis has launched the latest legal think tank under the chairmanship of leading legal journalist Joshua Rozenberg.
Halsbury’s Law Exchange (HLE) follows the likes of the College of Law’s Legal Services Policy Institute and Legal Futures Associate Jures – as well as charities like Legal Action Group – in generating research and debate over a range of key legal issues, including legal services reform.
HLE is different in bringing together a group of 14 lawyers to lead its work. It says the think tank will provide “a platform for open discussion with the legal community and general public, asking them to register their views on fundamental legal issues”. Its key aim is to influence the development of the law and communicate valuable ideas on reform to decision makers.
HLE has a broad remit, with each of the members leading on particular areas of law or practice, such as corporate, human rights, crime, environment and family. Nine of them are barristers, while well-known law firm consultants Tony Williams and Nick Jarrett-Kerr (both formerly practising solicitors) are leading on “legal sector strategy”. Among Mr Williams’ other roles is advising private equity company Lyceum on possible investments in the legal market. The other two solicitors on board are leading litigator David Greene of London firm Edwin Coe, and top corporate lawyer Nigel Boardman of Slaughter and May.
Six of the members have existing links with LexisNexis through involvement with various magazines it publishes.
HLE’s head of communications and research, Elsa Booth, said: “Although most news stories have a legal issue at the heart of them, there is currently no forum for encouraging informed and intelligent discussion around this crucial area, which impacts on all our lives. We want the think tank to change this: to pioneer new ideas and in the best traditions of the law to encourage quality debate.”
Think tank white papers currently in the pipeline include a proposal for a simpler employee vetting system; a paper questioning whether the doctrine of sovereign immunity is still appropriate; and one on assisted dying.
Visit the website here.