Updated guides are coming soon!
We update our Core Guides every summer in time for the new academic year. We’ve had a fair few students get in touch already about when we’ll be releasing our next updates, so click here for the breakdown.
We are looking for a team of law student ambassadors for the 2024/25 academic year. If you want to expand your skills and develop your network, this is the role for you.
We have an experienced editorial team at Law Answered, but we’re always looking for bright students to give us feedback to improve our products. We want our guides to be the best they can be and to tell students what they really need to know for their exams - so that’s where our Student Advisors come in!
We are looking for student advisors who are currently studying the PGDL (or MA Law) and the SQE… apply now!
We are looking for a motivated, conscientious individual with excellent written, legal and communication skills and a love for helping students to join our team as a Legal Writer.
When it comes to getting through your law exams and finding your dream job can feel like the biggest challenge there is. We totally get it. So many questions. So many decisions. It’s overwhelming.
And if there is one thing law students don’t have… is a lot of spare time to be figuring this all out yourself.
That’s why we’ve created the Answered Squad. Want to find out more?
The SRA has just released its annual quality assurance report which shows the LPC and GDL pass rates at different law schools. Pass rates differ hugely between law schools.
Over the 2018 academic year, the pass rate for the GDL fell from 64% to just 60%…
The Supreme Court has once again made a finding against the government. This time it’s in connection with a really interesting case of false imprisonment. R (on the application of Jalloh) v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2019]. The unfortunate Mr Jalloh, a Liberian national was released from immigration detention and allowed to live at home under strict rules which imposed a curfew from 11.00pm to 7.00am daily.
Newly updated editions of our LPC guides to Corporate Transactions, Corporate Finance, Debt Finance and Equity Finance are now available. Make sure you check out these guides if you are taking these exams!
Many of you who are studying the LPC this year are expecting to be examined on the new SRA Code of Conduct; this finally came into force on 25th November 2019. We have updated our LPC guide accordingly. But don’t worry – if you are being taught at an institution which is examining this year under the old rules - we can still let you have a copy of the previous version of our guide. (Do make sure you look at the new rules before you actually start work though!!)
If you’re in the process of studying EU, Public or Constitutional law now, then you need to read this post! It’s very likely that you’ll need to understand and refer to the concept in your exams, and to have a grasp what is now happening with Brexit. (If you have bought the relevant individual subject LLB guides, or the GDL guide, do read this as an update on your Brexit chapters).
We don't write guides specifically for the QLTS, but often have students and overseas lawyers ask if our guides are helpful.
We have quite a few customers using our GDL and LPC guides for the QLTS - and now one has written a very helpful article about how she prepared for the QLTS! We're glad to see our LPC Answered Core Guide get a mention.
We’re currently working on new editions of our LPC guides to Corporate Transactions, Corporate Finance, Debt Finance and Equity Finance. Our updated editions will be released in the week commencing 10 February. You'll be able to see on the individual product pages on our site for the date each guide is up to date at.
Ethical veganism is a protected belief!
Well, who knew that? We’ve all got good (and about time too) at recognising groups protected under the Equality Act 2010. Most law students can probably recall at least the majority of the categories – age, disability, gender reassignment, marriage and civil partnerships, pregnancy and maternity, race, religion or belief and sex. But how many of us would have thought that “belief” covered veganism?
Here at Law Answered we care a lot about writing with clarity. We intend that our guides should be produced using clear, precise English so that you can readily understand legal concepts - some of which are distinctly complex and tricky!
We think that an ability to craft language effectively and succinctly so that it can only have one meaning is a key requirement for a solicitor. (Those of you applying for training contracts, or paralegal vacancies and trying to explain why a legal career is for you might want to slide that idea into your applications.)
Sometimes it can be hard to explain the nuances of “legal writing” to law undergraduates and even to those further on with their legal training. We can break this down into lists of Dos and Don’ts:
Do: Keep sentences reasonably short.
Use standard formal English.
Spell correctly using English rather than US-English spellings.
Don’t: Abbreviate.
Use a word if you’re not entirely sure what it means.
Use unnecessary filler words.
We could go on, and on, but sometimes what you need is an example and we think that a really masterly one has been provided by Lady Hale in the recent Supreme Court judgment in R (on the application of Miller) v The Prime Minister. This is known as the Miller 2 case and you can find the link to the Supreme Court website here: https://www.supremecourt.uk/cases/docs/uksc-2019-0192-judgment.pdf.
Have a look – yes really! The judgment is 21 pages long and is a really masterly example of clear writing. Even if you only have time to read the first few paragraphs it will be worth your while. This judgment was written with clarity for everyone to understand.
If you want a quick overview of the case we’ve provided that for you too! Have a look at our Miller 2 blog below too.
If you want more writing tips like this, check out our friends at The Student Lawyer, who have loads of tips for law students on everything from exam technique to how to get a job in the law.
Lots of people have been talking about the case R (on the application of Miller) v The Prime Minister but do you know what it was about? It’s a huge constitutional law case so it would be good for all aspiring lawyers to have an idea what it’s about.
It’s a common adage that constitutional law is meant to be dull and boring – you might or might not agree but it’s hard to argue that recent developments have not shaken up the image.
If you’ve bought our LLB guides on Public or EU law or our GDL guide you’ll have seen our Brexit chapters where we’ve worked through and explained the constitutional law challenges of Brexit. Brexit has provided a number of examples of the working of Separation of Powers. The executive (or government) has taken actions and then found itself challenged by Parliament and the courts. Brexit divides public opinion in every way. On the one hand it’s arguable that the shenanigans have demonstrated that the checks and balances in our constitution work, on the other hand, some argue that we must now proceed towards a written constitution. Maybe spend a bit of time thinking about where you are on this part of the debate?
But what was Miller 2 about? It isn’t in our guides as the circumstances that gave rise to it and the judgment occurred after we went to print. When Boris Johnson was elected Prime Minister by the membership of the Tory party he committed to leaving the EU on 31st October “Do or die”, with or without a deal. He promised to die in a ditch rather than ask the EU for a further extension to our membership period. He made these commitments knowing that he faced a Parliamentary majority on one aspect of Brexit – that was that the UK should not leave the EU without a deal. Mr Johnson knew that Parliament might try to thwart his plans. He decided to ask the Queen to prorogue Parliament (bring proceedings in both houses to an end) for a protracted period covering the party conferences (when business is usually suspended) allegedly to allow him to prepare for a Queen’s speech.
Many cried foul, arguing that the purpose of the prorogation was to prevent Parliament from taking action to avoid the possibility of a no-deal Brexit. At very high speed Parliament managed to pass an Act (the Benn Act) to achieve precisely that end. The legislation required Mr Johnson to write to the EU to request an extension if Parliament had not ratified a withdrawal agreement by 19th October.
Meanwhile Gina Miller, Joanna Cherry and others went off to court to get a declaration that the prorogation was illegal, and that’s exactly the decision that was made by the High Court. The advice given to the Queen to prorogue Parliament was unlawful and therefore the prorogation was “unlawful, null and of no effect.” Pretty seismic stuff in constitutional law terms. Lady Hale backed the judgment up with a powerful bit of imagery. Prorogation happens when commissioner go to Parliament with the appropriate papers, the judgment proclaimed that “it was as if the Commissioners had walked into Parliament with a blank piece of paper.”
If you want to read more about Brexit and the law or have an idea for an article yourself, check out our friends at The Student Lawyer, the number one source of free news and information created by law students for law students.
The SRA’s new Standards and Regulations (“StaRs”) will come into force on 25th November 2019 © The Law Society. These new StaRs represent a very radical overhaul of the regulation of solicitors, including a new Code of Conduct for Solicitors and a new Code of Conduct for Law Firms.
Our current edition of our LPC Answered Core Modules guide was released in August 2019 and so references the previous Code. We have now updated this latest edition to refer to the new StaRs.
As the new StaRs were released fairly soon after our latest edition has been released, we will be providing these updates to all customers who have bought the latest edition of our Core Modules guide. Please check your email for more information!
Who remembers Interfoto Picture Library v Stilletto Visual Programmes? It’s a contract case about incorporation of terms, in this case very onerous ones. The defendant borrowed transparencies from a lending library, the delivery note contained conditions providing for very high charges if the transparencies were not returned in 4 weeks. The defendant failed to read the terms and incurred a charge of over £3,700. On appeal the claimants were not able to sustain their claim, particularly onerous contractual terms have to be brought to the attention of the other party. This was not done. A very recent case has, obiter, made this clearer. Higgins v Evans stated that Interfoto did not create a general doctrine of unfairness in contract law. Interfoto is very unlikely to apply to a signed contract where all the terms are set out. Knowing this and referring to it in the right place could add a mark to a contract law LLB essay!
Oh, and if you did want to know what Higgins v Evans is about it’s relevant to LPC studies. It concerns a CFA (Conditional Fee Agreement). Very briefly the court allowed a solicitor to recover basic charges under a CFA where the client died before any recovery had been made. There was no right under the CFA for the client’s estate to pursue the claim in the event of his death and his family claimed that this amounted to an unfair term. The agreement had been very clear and they were unsuccessful.
The new SRA Standards and Regulations – or “StaRs” – come into force on 25th November 2019. This represents a radical overhaul of the regulation of solicitors and law firms, with the old Code of Conduct being entirely rewritten.
That means we’ll be releasing an updated edition of our LPC Answered Core Modules guide to reflect the new StaRs and Codes of Conduct. Our forthcoming edition will include updated Professional Conduct and Regulation and Accounts chapters, with updated references to pervasive professional conduct points in the other chapters.
We don’t yet have a set release date for the latest edition, but expect it to be late November 2019 (or early December at the latest). Either way, don’t let that stop you buying our LPC Answered Core Modules guide now – when the updated edition is ready we will email round an updated Conduct chapter to all the students who have bought our 7th edition so far.
When does Art.8 ECHR go too far?
Sometimes, we come across a case which just fascinates us from a moral as well as a legal perspective and we thought we’d share just such a case with you. In A Local Authority v JB Mrs Justice Roberts had to examine restrictions placed on a 36 year old man who suffered impaired cognition and autism.
How should you write as a lawyer? Have you seen Jacob Rees-Mogg’s foray recently into providing advice for his team on how to write? Wow, due to his approach a very long list of words are no longer fit for purpose or are unacceptable. (Italics denote phrases or words he has banned).
Isn’t it nice when a new case comes along and explains some complex bit of law in such a way that makes everything fall into place? The good news is that this has happened recently in EU law.
You may have grappled with the bipartite and tripartite tests for an “emanation of the state”? For those yet to embark on this particular topic it’s important to be able to recognise an “emanation of the state” because EU Directives can have direct effect against member states or these “emanations”.
The case of Foster v British Gas somewhat unhelpfully proposed two different tests.
The tripartite test required the body to be providing a public service, to be under the control of the state AND to have some special powers beyond those normally applicable between individuals. (No, really don’t think Harry Potter – not now!)
The bipartite test required those special powers OR for the service to be under state control.
It seemed that the provisions of the tripartite test were cumulative and those of the bipartite test were not. It was not clear which test should be used when, except for a rather vague statement that the bipartite test was only applicable in “unusual circumstances”.
Well it’s now all clear, somebody does appear to have waved a magic wand after all! The recent case of Farrell II has decided that the Foster principles should be applied alternatively and not cumulatively. This removes the need to decide whether to apply the bipartite or tripartite tests.
We ended up with big grins when we amended our guides to reflect this change. Do enjoy the removal of one complexity!
If you are on the path to becoming a lawyer, make sure you visit Law Answered where we have a range of resources to help you on your journey.
