Month: August 2019

Life as a Trainee at Forsters

  • 21 August 2019
  • Podcasts and videos
Skyscrapers stand prominently against a blue sky with scattered clouds, surrounded by lower buildings. The tall structures feature modern glass facades, creating a skyline in an urban setting.

Partner and training principal, Helen Marsh, and second year trainee Anastasia Pejacsevich join Miri Stickland to talk about life as a trainee at Forsters, including the type of support and training our trainees can expect to receive throughout their training contracts, adapting to life as a trainee and the process on qualification.

Helen discusses the importance of trainees here at Forsters: “We value our trainees highly here at Forsters, and as part of our business, so we try to give them the best training and we spend a lot of time and resource on them.”

“The formal induction programme at the start of the training contract is quite intensive, covering all the internal processes of the firm. Both during the initial induction and throughout the training contract we focus on providing technical legal training including research, writing and drafting skills alongside pastoral training on building resilience, dealing with stress and how to deal with difficult conversations.”

Anastasia provides her perspective as a current trainee: “As a trainee every day is different. You can’t always plan your day, which makes you learn to be a lot more flexible and not to panic if something unexpected crops up. I’ve really developed how to manage my time and adapt to different situations.”

“One of the things I really like about being in an open-plan environment is that you hear more senior people asking each other questions to get the benefit of each other’s expertise, which makes it feel more normal when I have to ask questions about a piece of work I’ve been given on something I haven’t dealt with before.”

You can learn more about training at Forsters by viewing our Graduate Recruitment pages.

You may also be interested in:

Listen to more episodes and subscribe

You can listen to more episodes of the More Than Law podcast here on our website, as well as subscribe on your favourite podcast services, including SoundCloud, iTunes/Apple Podcasts, Spotify, Stitcher, TuneIn and YouTube.

To continue the conversation on social media, use #MoreThanLawPodcast.

A woman with long brown hair smiles slightly, wearing a dark top and gold earrings, in front of a softly blurred, vertically textured background.
Author

Miri Stickland

View profile

Court of Appeal overturns previous judgment, confirming that parties can be forced to engage in certain types of alternative dispute resolution.

  • 15 August 2019
  • News
Skyscrapers stand prominently against a blue sky with scattered clouds, surrounded by lower buildings. The tall structures feature modern glass facades, creating a skyline in an urban setting.

The Court of Appeal has overturned the High Court judgment of Mrs Justice Parker in the case of Lomax v Lomax (as commented on by Roberta Harvey and Hannah Mantle on 4 June 2019), confirming that the Court can order Early Neutral Evaluation (ENE) even if the parties do not consent.

Despite the wider scope of Mrs Justice Parker’s judgment (which considered the Court’s powers in relation to Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR) more generally), the Court of Appeal was prepared to limit the scope of the appeal hearing to the construction of Civil Procedure Rule 3.1(2)(m).

It is interesting that the Court of Appeal was unreceptive to attempts by the respondent to widen the scope of the appeal, by referring to contradictory language in various Court Guides (including the Chancery, Commercial, and Technology and Construction Court Guides) all of which suggest that ENE is dependent on consent. The Court of Appeal’s response was simply that the rules could not be disapplied by the Court Guides. It also gave short shrift to the respondent’s suggestion that ENE should be given similar treatment to mediation (which is widely recognised as a voluntary process, as endorsed in Halsey v Milton Keynes General NHS Trust [2004] EWCA Civ 576, seemingly viewing mediation and ENE as significantly different procedures. This seems difficult to argue with, given that ENE is a Court led process which requires an independent party to express an opinion about a dispute (or an element of it), whereas mediation is predominately a negotiation between the parties, requiring active engagement from them, and which could obstruct their right of access to the court if made compulsory.

Whilst the judgment (which is due to be reported in the coming weeks) may prompt the Court, and parties to litigation, to give fresh consideration to ENE, it seems unlikely that orders for ENE without consent will become commonplace. ENE is not appropriate in all cases and the Court is unlikely to allocate resources to the process unless it is confident that it will be suitable (in this regard see Seals v Williams [2015] EWHC 1829 (Ch), which touches upon the advantages of ENE, and the circumstances in which it might prove useful). It will also be interesting to see whether the judgment makes any comment on the Court’s power to order Financial Dispute Resolution (FDR) hearings (an alternative form of ADR which has its origins in the Family Division, where it is usually compulsory); although this question was considered within Mrs Justice Parker’s judgment, it seems that it may have fallen outside the more limited scope of the appeal.

In any event, and despite the narrowing of the issues, the case serves as a reminder of the Court’s commitment to ADR generally, and should encourage parties to keep their minds open to the many alternatives to litigation, at every step of the relevant proceedings.

Ashleigh Carr is an associate in our Dispute Resolution team.

A person with shoulder-length brown hair smiles slightly, wearing a blue and white striped shirt, against a neutral background.
Author

Ashleigh Carr

View profile