Commercial Awareness Update – W/C 3rd March 2025

WHISTLEBLOWER PROTECTION IN THE UK: A CASE FOR REFORM

Whistleblowing entails disclosing unethical, illegal, or improper conduct within an organisation to the appropriate authorities or individuals. Although definitions may vary, the term generally refers to reporting activities that, while not always strictly illegal, still raise significant ethical or regulatory concerns.

In recent decades, whistleblowing has become vital for promoting corporate governance and public accountability. Whistleblowers are crucial in enhancing transparency and ensuring accountability by exposing hidden violations.

The current legal framework in the UK

The cornerstone of whistleblower protection in the UK is the Public Interest Disclosure Act 1998 (PIDA), which was highly innovative at its enactment. PIDA protects individuals from adverse actions, such as dismissal, harassment, or discrimination, when they report wrongdoing.

To qualify for protection under PIDA, a disclosure must be made in the public interest and pertain to issues such as criminal offenses, breaches of legal obligations, miscarriages of justice, threats to health and safety, environmental damage, or the concealment thereof.

Recent data underscores the ongoing relevance of whistleblowing mechanisms. The Financial Conduct Authority’s report, published on 5 September 2024, revealed that it received and assessed 1,124 new whistleblower reports, marking a slight increase from previous years, with fewer than 1,100 cases reported between 2020 and 2023.

This upward trend highlights the growing reliance on whistleblowing channels and the pressing need for robust legal protections.

International comparisons

Ireland
 Ireland’s Protected Disclosures Act 2014 presents a robust alternative. The Act establishes clear internal reporting structures and provides strong safeguards against retaliation. Organisations such as Transparency International Ireland further support whistleblowers through advocacy, research, and practical assistance.

European Union
 The EU’s Whistleblower Protection Directive (2019/1937) sets out minimum standards for member states, ensuring confidentiality, mandating thorough investigations, and offering robust protection against reprisals. This Directive reinforces the right to freedom of expression and highlights the necessity of an integrated approach to whistleblower protection within the broader framework of EU law.

Weaknesses of the UK’s system

Despite PIDA’s pioneering status, several critical deficiencies have emerged over time. Notably, the absence of mandatory reporting channels means that many employers are not required to establish formal internal mechanisms, leaving employees uncertain about the correct procedures for reporting misconduct.

Furthermore, PIDA offers limited coverage by excluding non-executive directors, self-employed individuals, volunteers, and trustees. The statutory requirement that disclosures be “substantially true” and “reasonable” creates a prohibitive evidentiary burden, which may dissuade potential whistleblowers. Compounding these issues is a widespread lack of awareness among employees regarding their rights under PIDA and a persistent fear of retaliation, even when anonymity is maintained.

Finally, the necessity to report to a designated “prescribed person” further complicates the process, diminishing the law’s overall efficacy.

The push for reform

In light of these shortcomings, the UK government reviewed its whistleblowing framework in March 2023. A significant proposal from this review is Labour MP Gareth Snell’s Whistleblower Protection Bill, introduced in December 2024. This proposed legislation advocates establishing an independent Office of the Whistleblower (OWB) overseeing disclosures, ensuring confidentiality, and conducting impartial investigations.

Notably, the Bill seeks to extend protections to all individuals who disclose wrongdoing in the public interest, irrespective of their employment status. High-profile cases, such as that of NHS whistleblower Dr. Colbert, who faced defamation and dismissal after raising patient safety concerns, underscore the urgent need for reform.

While the reform pushes for stronger protections, one key element still lacking is financial incentives for whistleblowers. Unlike in other jurisdictions such as the US, providing monetary rewards to those who blow the whistle is not a feature of the UK’s regulatory framework. Neither the Financial Conduct Authority nor the Serious Fraud Office (SFO) offer financial rewards for whistleblowers, though HMRC provides minimal incentives for information about tax fraud.

These payouts are significantly lower than those offered in the US, where whistleblowers can receive substantial financial rewards. The absence of economic incentives in the UK may limit the motivation for individuals to come forward, especially when facing potential retaliation.

Impact on the legal sector

Reforming the whistleblower protection framework would also have far-reaching implications for the legal profession. Enhanced protections would foster a culture of accountability within law firms and courts and encourage legal professionals to report unethical behavior without fear of retribution.

Establishing an independent OWB could streamline the investigative process, ensuring that allegations are handled impartially and those who come forward are adequately protected. In turn, these reforms could address systemic issues such as corruption and professional misconduct, thus bolstering public confidence in the legal system.

In conclusion, while PIDA was once a groundbreaking statute, it now lags behind international standards due to gaps in coverage, the absence of mandatory reporting channels, and an insufficient framework for incentivising whistleblowers.

Comparative models from Ireland, the EU, and the United States provide valuable insights into how the UK’s system might be improved. Strengthening the legal framework through measures such as establishing an independent Office of the Whistleblower and implementing robust safeguards against retaliation is essential.

Such reforms would enhance accountability across the corporate and legal sectors and position the UK as a global leader in protecting those who expose wrongdoing.

• By Misha Madinah

BREAKING BARRIERS: HOW LAW FIRMS ARE DRIVING SOCIAL MOBILITY

Access to the legal profession in the UK has historically been restricted to a specific section of society, with many firms’ leadership being male dominated. Since then, however, equality has come a long way.

Not only have changes been reflected in legislation, such as the indispensable Equality Act 2010 which enshrined any discrimination laws for all, the Mansfield Rule Certification introduced in 2017 has made waves in improving diversity, equity and inclusion (DEI) measures across many industries that were previously inaccessible to minority groups.

The legal profession remains one of the least diverse based on socioeconomic background, yet many firms are fighting to change this.

What are firms doing to improve diversity and social mobility?

The Mansfield Rule was the winning idea of Diversity Lab’s Women in Law Hackathon in 2016, named after Arabella Mansfield, the first female lawyer in the US.

Being Mansfield Rule certified requires law firms to ‘demonstrate year-long progress in increasing diversity in senior recruitment and leadership decisions and consider a minimum of 30% diverse candidates for these roles’.

In the eight years since its inception, attitudes have shifted, imparting a greater responsibility on employers to make a conscious effort to improve social mobility and diversify their workforce.

Since the start of the decade, many city firms have achieved Mansfield Rule Certifications, including A&O Shearman, BCLP, Clifford Chance, DLA Piper, and Linklaters, to name a few. To implement their commitment, firms have projected ambitious social mobility targets.

Simmons & Simmons, one of the latest firms to do so, wants a minimum of 20% of partners, managing associates, associates and trainees/apprentices to be from lower socio-economic backgrounds by 2029.

No more than 17% of any group are from lower socioeconomic backgrounds (LSEBs). They are one of the few firms that disclose their targets.

Firms have adopted a variety of different approaches to put these commitments into action:

• 10,000 Black Interns Programme: Firms such as Pinsent Masons, Charles Russell Speechlys, Simmons & Simmons, and Slaughter and May, among many others, are signatories of the 10,000 Black Interns Programme which aims to uplift Black students and graduates across a range of industries by providing them with training and connecting them to paid opportunities.
• Solicitor apprenticeships: The Solicitors Regulation Authority (SRA) has two available routes for apprenticeships, either five to six years after completion of A levels or two to three years for those who have completed an undergraduate degree. Several firms offer solicitor apprenticeships including A&O, Shearman, Bird & Bird, Taylor Wessing, Simmons & Simmons and White & Case LLP. This offer provides those from less privileged backgrounds a chance to earn as they learn, and sometimes even have their undergraduate degree or SQE funded by law firms.

• Collaborating with universities: The Early Careers Recruitment team at Slaughter & May works with and sponsors Afro-Caribbean student societies at several universities to attract the best talent.
• Virtual internships: Firms such as Clifford Chance, Linklaters and Clyde & Co provide remote virtual internships available from anywhere in the world for people of all ages and backgrounds to get an idea of their work in a flexible learning environment. Some firms prioritise participants’ vacation schemes and training contract applications, allowing them to showcase their passion for working at the firm, even if they cannot avail themselves of in-person opportunities.

• Organisation partnerships: The Law Society supports organisations such as PRIME, The Aspiring Solicitors Foundation and Sutton Trust – Pathways to Law to improve social mobility in law firm recruitment. These platforms provide aspiring legal professionals with free virtual training programmes, speaker sessions, mentorship schemes, application reviews, and interview preparation.

Why are social mobility initiatives necessary?

• Firm policy: Successful social mobility schemes integrated into firms’ policies can not only have a long-term positive impact on those in the UK offices but, if implemented in international offices, can improve social mobility in locations around the globe.
• Top talent: By supporting those from LSEBs, firms improve the diversity of their members and ensure that they maintain a competitive edge by recruiting the best talent without being restricted by arbitrary factors like background. It also incentivises more young people to consider the legal profession a serious and attainable career path.
• Diversity: With greater diversity in talent, firms can grow their clientele. Clients from different racial, ethnic and/or socioeconomic backgrounds may feel more comfortable with lawyers who understand their unique issues. Eliminating language barriers, appreciating cultural norms, and knowing specific business customs in different jurisdictions (particularly for international law firms) can help firms tailor their services to individual clients’ needs.

What else can law firms do?

While progress has been made, law firms still have room to push social mobility efforts further. Along with publishing diversity data, more firms could follow Simmons & Simmons’ lead by publicly disclosing measurable targets for social mobility and clarifying how they intend to achieve them.

Ultimately, actual change requires sustained commitment, not just policies on paper. By continuously assessing and improving DEI strategies, law firms can ensure that social mobility becomes an embedded part of the profession, fostering a legal sector that genuinely reflects the society it serves.

• By Natasha Saeed Ikramullah