Legal Awareness Newsletter - Edition 5
November 28th 2024
Welcome to this year’s fifth edition of the UCL Law Society’s Legal Awareness Newsletter. This edition features a wide range of topics from a wide range of jurisdictions, from British high street cosmetic surgery to American presidential politics and Russian criminal justice. The commercial awareness section offers multiple perspectives of the HSF-Kramer Levin merger and a growing trend of law firms looking across the Atlantic, plus some useful terms to know.
Owen Johnson
Guest Editor
General Section
Liposuction for Beginners: What Could Possibly go Wrong?
Sam Schajer
The number of non-surgical cosmetic procedures has massively risen due to social media, increased accessibility and affordability of treatment, and the rapid development of products in this field. These procedures include Botox treatments, fillers, chemical peels, and forms of liposuction.
The lack of regulation governing cosmetic procedures in the UK has left countless people with life changing injuries. Calls to increase regulation in this area have increased following the ITV’s documentary called “Britain’s Backstreet Surgery Scandal” which was a result of a year-long investigation into the unregulated cosmetic procedures happening on the high street.
This documentary showed how companies are offering short training sessions to ordinary people who have no medical background or relevant qualifications. After a brief training day, these people are going on to provide invasive cosmetic surgeries such as liposuction. The documentary went undercover at Luxury Medical Aesthetics to highlight this point.
The complications from poorly regulated high street procedures can be catastrophic. Earlier this year, Alice Webb died following complications following a high-street Brazilian butt lift (BBL). She was injected with dermal filler which carries a significant risk of infection, vascular occlusion, and sepsis. These risks are significantly increased when the treatment is provided by people who do not have any medical background and are unable to properly identify complications. The late, and mistaken, identification of complications leads to significantly poorer outcomes for the client when things go wrong.
Issue
The current legal situation means that procedures like a non-invasive BBL’s are legal to carry out on the high street. There is very little regulatory oversight and very little licensing requirements. Very few local authorities have their own licensing scheme for non-surgical treatments in the UK.
The current regulation focuses on regulating the supply of prescription only drugs, and the safety of work premises. You need to be a prescribing medic to get a drug like Botox, but – critically – you do not need to have any form of license to actually administer Botox or other forms of non-invasive cosmetic surgery.
Proposed reforms
In response to the ITV documentary, Health Secretary Wes Streeting said that he thinks that the situation is “absolutely disgusting” and that he is committed to passing legislation that would introduce regulation into this field.
A suggestion proposed under the Sunak Government was to introduce a licensing scheme which would ensure that practitioners are sufficiently trained, have proper insurance, and are operating from sufficiently safe and hygienic premises. Other suggestions include introducing a traffic-light system of regulation that would impose certain restrictions based on the producer. Complex procedures like a hair transplant would be considered a red procedure and only carried out by someone with healthcare qualification. Non-surgical cosmetic procedures would be considered amber and would need a license and supervision by a medical professional. For minor procedures like micro needling, it is proposed that these would be green, although still required to meet a minimum hygiene and safety standard.
Such reforms must balance the interests of the different stakeholders. While licensing requirements are necessary to improve safety, it’s important that they don’t impose such a high financial burden on providers that treatments become unaffordable for consumers. Measures should be put in place to ensure smaller businesses and practitioners can adapt without being forced out of the industry entirely. Similarly, local authorities, which are already financially stretched, must not be overwhelmed by the cost or complexity of implementing these regulations. Central government support or phased implementation could help ensure that these reforms improve safety without compromising affordability or accessibility.
Conclusion
It is clear that regulation must be introduced rapidly to prevent severe harm occurring as a result of unregulated high street cosmetic procedures, and these reforms must introduce sufficient minimum standards of training and operating standards. The Labour government has expressed commitment to implementing these reforms.
Recruiting Prisoners for Freedom: Implications for the Russian Criminal Justice System
Aykhan Allahveranov
Since the beginning of the most recent conflict between Russia and Ukraine in 2022, there has been a systematic recruit of convicts into the Russian army. This controversial practice has had a widespread impact on the Russian criminal justice and system and on law and order in the country.
Before he died in a plane crash last August, Wagner Group leader Yevgeny Prigozhin said that almost 50,000 Russian prisoners had been dispatched to the front line under this deal – similar figures have been cited by human rights activists.
Under the previous arrangement, prisoners released to fight would be offered a pardon and could go home after six months.
The new conditions, introduced following Prigozhin’s death, are far stricter. Instead of a pardon, former prisoners now receive a ‘conditional release’ at the end of their time with the army. That means if they are found guilty of committing a new crime their sentence will also reflect their previous convictions. The contracts have also been extended to one year, instead of the previous six months, and are automatically extended at the end of the year. The practical effect of all this is that convicts will have to fight until the end of the war.
Even before the war has ended, Verstka, an independent Russian website, estimates that at least 242 Russian citizens have been killed by soldiers returning from Ukraine. Another 227 have been seriously injured. Many of the attackers have previous criminal convictions and were released from prison specifically to join the war.
Consequently, the number of serious crimes registered in Russia rose by almost 10% in 2023 according to the BBC, and the causes of this are manifold. Many of the returning convicts have been personally pardoned by the Russian president. They have been hailed as ‘heroes’ and dubbed by President Putin as Russia’s ‘new elite’. By turning the notions of good and evil upside down, there has developed a significant group in society who think they are above the law.
Russia’s latest counter-offensives in the Kursk region are producing heavy casualties, which in turn drives the need for more convict recruits. Given US president-elect Trump’s promise to strike a deal and end the war between the two nations, there is a looming prospect of thousands of returning convicts that will need to be addressed by the Russian state.
The Three-Billion-Pound Case Against Apple
Jessica Li
The consumer advocacy group Which? has filed a £3 billion collective lawsuit against Apple in the UK, alleging the company abused its dominant market position to overcharge customers for iCloud subscriptions. The case focuses on accusations that Apple constrained competition by making it challenging for users to access rival services while operating within its iOS ecosystem. This behaviour, Which? argues, forced approximately 40 million UK consumers into unfair pricing structures for cloud storage from October 2015 onward.
If successful, affected customers could receive an average compensation of £70. This case, filed as an opt-out collective action, allows consumers to be automatically included unless they specifically opt out. Which? describes Apple’s practices as exploitative and anti-competitive, claiming the lack of viable alternatives led to inflated costs.
Apple has denied these claims, asserting that iCloud is optional, and consumers have access to several third-party alternatives. The company also defends its commitment to user-friendly services, arguing that consumers are not restricted to its ecosystem. Despite this, the lawsuit raises broader legal and regulatory questions, especially within market dominance and competition law.
Growing Regulatory Focus on Big Tech
The lawsuit comes amid global efforts to regulate Big Tech’s market behaviour. Governments and regulators are increasingly examining companies like Apple, Google, and Amazon to ensure they are not engaging in monopolistic or anti-competitive behaviour. For instance, in 2024, closing arguments were made in the United States’ antitrust lawsuit against Google. The U.S. Department of Justice argued that Google monopolized online search and advertising markets. This growing regulatory pressure highlights the need for businesses to ensure their practices comply with competition laws, especially in areas where they hold significant market power.
Market Dominance and Ecosystem Control
Apple’s business model relies on its integrated ecosystem, which includes hardware like iPhones and software services like iCloud. While this creates convenience for users, it also makes it harder for them to switch to rival services, such as Google Drive or Dropbox. Which? argues that this model creates a “lock-in” effect, making it inconvenient or impractical for consumers to switch to competing cloud storage providers.
Cases like this demonstrate how ecosystem control impacts competition significantly. Dominance in one area of the market (e.g. hardware) can extend into others (e.g. cloud services), raising questions about fair competition and consumer rights.
The Rise of Collective Actions in the UK
This case is a notable example of opt-out collective actions, which are becoming more common in the UK following legal reforms. Unlike opt-in systems, opt-out mechanisms allow large groups of consumers to sue collectively without individually joining the claim. For lawyers, this signals a growing need to prepare for large-scale litigation that can result in significant financial and reputational consequences for corporate clients.
Conclusion
The Which? lawsuit against Apple is a high-profile example of the growing interplay between legal frameworks and evolving market practices in the digital economy. For lawyers, it underscores the importance of understanding consumer protection, competition law, and the strategic implications of collective actions.
What the Supreme Court’s Immunity Ruling Means for Donald Trump’s Second Term
Elise Lunt
Donald Trump’s victory in the 2024 presidential election was unprecedented in many ways and, as a consequence, has raised or renewed a number of questions. Among these, prompted by a decision from the US Supreme Court this year, is that of presidential immunity; the degree to which immunity will aid Trump in ongoing legal action and may embolden him as he enters his second term. In the eyes of many, the guardrails have been erroneously lowered; in the eyes of some, functional government and the rule of law itself are at risk.
Trump v United States
Last July, a 6-3 Supreme Court majority held in Trump v United States that former presidents are entitled to “absolute immunity” for acts taken in an official capacity if the act fell within their “conclusive and preclusive constitutional authority”. When the act falls within the “outer perimeter” of presidential powers, if the act is usually carried out by the president but it is not expressly delegated exclusive power by the Constitution, the president is entitled to presumed immunity, subject to evidence.
Trump v United States also established that in the case of a former president prosecuted for acts committed in an unofficial, private capacity, for which they are not entitled to immunity, evidence of unlawful action that falls into the ambit of their official duties whilst a sitting president is inadmissible.
The Future of Trump’s Current Legal Battles
At this time, there is very little certainty as to what the next four years hold in store. However, one thing is sure: Trump will not be going to prison. His electoral mandate and the outcome of Trump v United States ensure that any legal action will essentially be ‘killed’, if it has not been already.
Last Friday, New York County Supreme Court Judge Juan Merchan indefinitely postponed sentencing for the 34 felony counts Trump was convicted of last May. In addition, his lawyers have been working tirelessly to have the other cases dismissed, particularly the Georgia case, on account of Trump’s impending status as President. If this fails, there is a pending motion in place to have charges thrown out. Further, Trump has long flirted with thwarting the Department of Justice altogether as president. On one occasion, he promised he would fire special counsel Jack Smith “within two seconds” of his inauguration. This would effectively terminate two criminal cases concerning the president-elect’s conduct and handling of classified documents and his efforts to overturn the result of the 2020 election.
Of note, it is also highly unlikely Trump will face any charges as a sitting precedent due to a time-honoured DOJ policy; charges that might arise will only be filed after Trump leaves office in 2029.
An Assault on the Rule of Law?
In 1787, as the Founding Fathers were drafting the Constitution, they were united in unanimous emphasis on one principal desire: they wanted nothing that resembled a king at the helm of their new nation. For the last 250 years, assumed, if nebulous, possibility of criminal prosecution acted as a guardrail on presidential conduct. Yet, as Neil Eggleston, an attorney who served as White House Counsel for the Obama Administration, noted, “that guardrail is now gone”. As Supreme Court Justice Sonia Sotomayor put it in her dissenting opinion, “the President is now a king above the law”.
With an explicit electoral mandate in one hand and the precedent of Trump v United States in the other, one is forced to wonder how governmental processes, democratic safeguards, and constitutional order will fare when Donald Trump is sworn into office for a second time on the 20th of January 2025.
Commercial Awareness Section
If You Can’t Beat Them, Join Them: HSF’s Potential Merger with Kramer Levin
Adrien Charles
Earlier this month, Herbert Smith Freehills announced its plans to merge with US firm Kramer Levin, creating a unified firm operating under the new heading Herbert Smith Freehills Kramer. Though still subject to partner approval, this potential merger marks a significant step in the growing trend of UK firms joining forces with US counterparts to retain their competitive edge. Against this backdrop, it is worth exploring the strategic considerations that shaped this potential merger and how it exemplifies the broader pattern of transatlantic mergers reshaping the legal sector.
Key Details of the Merger
Should the partner vote go through early next year, the merger between HSF and Kramer Levin is poised to create a network of over 2,700 lawyers, including around 640 partners, across 25 offices worldwide. The new entity is set to operate under a single profit pool and a unified global remuneration structure, mirroring the model adopted in the landmark merger between Allen & Overy and Shearman & Stearling earlier this year.
With HSF having continually shown desire to expand in the US, the choice of firm was very deliberate. By joining forces with Kramer Levin, HSF will significantly enhance its Manhattan presence with the addition of Kramer’s nearly 300 lawyers. The merger will also establish a foothold in other key markets, including Washington DC and Silicon Valley. Beyond strengthening its existing US presence, the newly formed HSF Kramer plans to leverage this platform for further expansion within the country, with Texas identified as a primary target for future growth.
Growing Trend of UK-US Law Firm Mergers
HSF’s merger plans come amidst a surge in transatlantic mergers reshaping the legal sector. From large-scale alliances to more targeted acquisitions, UK and US firms are increasingly joining forces to enhance their global competitiveness and better serve multinational clients. Indeed, while the headline-grabbing merger between Magic Circle firm Allen & Overy and Shearman & Stearling dominated the spotlight, smaller-scale moves like Bryan Cave Leighton Paisner’s acquisition of Seattle-based firm Harrigan Leyh Farmer & Thomsen highlight the diversity of approaches firms are using to achieve a stronger foothold in key markets and practice areas.
Regardless of a merger’s scale, the advantages are clear and often compelling. Mergers offer immediate scale, expanded market reach and strength in a way that cannot be achieved organically. By combining their resources, firms can offer more comprehensive services to clients while strengthening their position in competitive markets. For example, merging with a US firm allows UK firms to access high-value sectors such as private equity, technology, and litigation, where the US dominates.
However, mergers are not without their challenges. Financial integration often proves a significant hurdle, as differing compensation models and profit-sharing structures can create friction between merging entities. Additionally, location overlaps between merging firms may create inefficiencies and redundancies, raising questions about whether the benefits outweigh the costs. These concerns underscore why some firms remain cautious about pursuing full-scale mergers like the one in question. Instead, they explore less-comprehensive alliances or joint ventures. These approaches, while more conservative, reflect the careful calculations firms must take in balancing opportunity with operational realities.
What’s Next for the UK and US Legal Markets?
As US expansion continues to be a strategic priority for many UK law firms, the spotlight will inevitably shift toward whether other similar mergers will take shape in the near future. Given the growing global competition and the need for firms to strengthen their international footprint, it is highly likely that we will see more UK firms exploring cross-Atlantic alliances. More specifically, firms of comparable stature to HSF, such as Simmons & Simmons and Ashurst, may face increasing pressure to follow suit and pursue their own US expansion strategies.
Terms
Justin Fu
A selection of commercial awareness terms to better understand this section and beyond.
Merger:
As implied by the name, a merger occurs when two or more distinct corporate entities voluntarily and permanently combine to form one new entity. This new entity will have a unique name, operational framework, and management team. Typically, the merging companies are of similar sizes and industries. Though the terms are often used synonymously, a merger is different to an acquisition. In gist, the latter refers to one company purchasing another company. No new corporate entity is formed.
The predominant benefit of merging is increasing the market share of the companies involved. Often, this is because a direct competitor in the market has now ceased to exist. More importantly, the new corporate entity has access to the capital, and resources from both merging companies. This also enables it to further benefit from economies of scale. Furthermore, by combining the geographical influence of the merging companies, this process can grant these companies access to new markets. Amidst post-pandemic recovery, there has been an uptick in mergers. Within the legal industry, Magic Circle firm Allen & Overy recently merged with legacy firm Shearman in May 2024 to form A&O Shearman. This process of merging is transactionally complex. Companies who wish to merge typically consult the Corporate M&A team of law firms to assist them.
Big Tech:
Commonly coined ‘Big Tech’, this term vaguely refers to the largest and most profitable technological companies in the world (with valuations often in the trillions). On a proximate level, these companies have massive market influence. Their products have a significant consumer base. The companies also continue to innovate, creating new consumer friendly products. On a broader level, due to their economic significance, the stock of Big Tech companies can impact the overarching financial markets. Often, Big Tech companies are based in Silicon Valley. Common examples include:
Apple
Alphabet (Google)
Microsoft
Amazon
Big Tech companies have been increasingly subject to litigation. Most common are regulatory claims pertaining to data privacy or claims that they are in breach of antirust. Take the example of Apple. Aside from the “Which?” consumer group claim against them, the company has also been repeatedly fined for the market dominance of the App Store. More notably, Google has recently lost a landmark antitrust case on its search function. However, under the Trump administration, it is forecasted that antitrust stringency will be loosened. Nonetheless, as Big Tech continues to grow, they need to continually rely on legal services. Doing so will minimise regulatory friction and potential disputes.
If You Can’t Beat Them, Join Them: HSF’s Potential Merger with Kramer Levin
Oskar Puntmann
When it comes to law, New York is the place to be. US firms dominate the international market and earn billions in revenue. London, the legal centre of the UK, is lagging behind as partner profits in the US soar. There have been a number of high-profile mergers in recent years, driven by a wish to pierce into the US market and expand global outreach The biggest recently was between Allen & Overy and Shearman Sterling in 2023. And another deal is being finalised, with Silver Circle firm Herbert Smith Freehills teaming up with Kramer Levin to form HSF Kramer.
Why are so many mergers happening?
Mergers have become more frequent as law firms become bigger. Competition is a big driver of this, especially between the two sides of the Atlantic. US firms are known for paying their lawyers higher salaries than UK firms and making more profit, with the top 15 US firms making 25% more profit in 2023 than their UK counterparts. For UK firms, mergers help to alleviate fears about attracting talent and clients, as well as to maintain their profit margins.
Further, US private equity truly does rule the world. Many US firms have long-established client bases and reputations in the US. As our world becomes ever more globalised, UK firms have sought to enter this American-dominated market. Mergers allow a firm to do so and gain the credibility that the partner firm has in the US. This was a major motivator for Allen & Overy when it merged with Shearman & Sterling last year. For a top tier UK firm with Magic or Silver Circle status, such as Allen & Overy or Herbert Smith Freehills, the only feasible next step for expansion is into the US.
Why have HSF merged with Kramer Levin?
It was announced this month that Herbert Smith Freehills is finalising a deal to merge with Kramer Levin in the US to create a $2bn, 2700-lawyer-strong firm. This would take the new firm into the top 20 law firms globally. HSF sees it as an opportunity to expand into the US, gaining growth in sectors such as energy, infrastructure and technology. For Kramer Levin, it is an opportunity for greater expansion into the European and global markets. The partners explain it as a perfect fit with the firms having similar cultural and diversity values.
Mergers are happening more often, and give firms more international recognition and increased profits. The only question that remains is who will be next to couple up.
Links
Justin Fu
A selection of links for further reading from the global commercial world. Click on the headings for the full story.
Chinese tech investment within Silicon Valley:
Chinese AI companies have increased investment within Silicon Valley to bypass Western protectionism and gain access to industry-leading semiconductors. This initiative was led by companies such as Alibaba, Bytedance, and Meituan.
Northvolt, a key manufacturer of lithium-ion batteries for EVs, has recently filed for Ch.11 Bankruptcy. It requires an estimated 1 billion of new funds for restructuring. This marks a significant hindrance towards the EU’s EV transition initiatives.
Amidst the AI boom, Nvidia continues to dominate not just the semiconductor industry, but the technological sector. The company’s recent third-quarter report indicates a continual upward trajectory in revenue and sales. However, its stock temporarily went down. This could be indicative of the exceeding expectations brought by the AI bubble.
COP29’s Trillion-Dollar Climate Fund
Discussions in the recently held COP29 include the potential creation of a $1 trillion climate fund. However, there is much dispute and controversy revolving around the proportions in which countries have to finance this fund.