Commercial Awareness Update – W/C 28th April 2025

UNREGULATED EXPERTS IN FAMILY COURTS

In the third quarter of 2024, over 17,000 new cases were opened at the Family Court of England and Wales, all relating to the care and supervision of children.

Due to the sensitive nature of such cases, the Court often considers expert advice when making decisions regarding the welfare of children.

Part 25 of the Family Court Procedure Rules (FPR) contains provisions regarding using experts in family cases. However, the Family Procedure Rule Committee (FPRC) recently released a draft of amendments to Part 25 in response to public outcry about the lack of regulation.

Critical issues

An undercover recording obtained by the Bureau of Investigative Journalism (BIJ) and Tortoise Media revealed the deep-rooted bias of Melanie Gill, a Family Court specialist. Gill, an unregulated psychologist in the Family Court, has given evidence in almost 200 child welfare cases and was responsible for the removal of at least a dozen children from their mothers’ care.

The views Gill expressed in the recording ranged from disparaging the new generation of family court judges to criticising domestic violence charities for ‘validating’ women’s allegations of abuse. Specialising in parental alienation, Gill’s comments stand out, as she is one of many experts employed by the Family Court who are not registered with a regulator.

According to FPR 25.3, the expert assessor has an overriding duty to the Court, and the guidance issued by the FPRC imposes a duty of impartiality on all experts. An ongoing consultation conducted by the FPRC aims to impose requirements for appropriate skills and qualifications and regulate experts giving evidence in family cases, further strengthening the FPR.

However, Olive Craig, legal adviser for the charity Rights of Women, criticised these reforms as not doing enough to combat experts’ pushing of personal beliefs.

Melanie Gill is one of many unregulated experts raising questions about the fairness of practices in the Family Court.

Broader implications

Right to a fair trial: Experts in family cases must submit written reports and recommendations to family judges, which can significantly influence the outcome of a case. Judges acting on biased recommendations could jeopardise the right to a fair trial under Article 6 of the European Convention on Human Rights.

Children’s welfare: If children are compelled to maintain a relationship with a parent who is not the best carer for them, based on a biased report by an unregulated expert, this could be detrimental to their health and welfare. The same is true if they are separated from primary caregivers, such as children separated from their mothers, or if there is a genuine risk of harm, such as in abusive households.

Effect on parents: Being separated from their children could similarly harm parents. In cases with vulnerable parents with mental health conditions, separation could have adverse consequences for their safety.

Trust in the system: If families lose faith in the state’s ability to safeguard their and their loved ones’ best interests, they may be less inclined to speak out if they are in danger. Furthermore, it could set a negative trend among parties and practitioners alike, where they may feel compelled to ‘manipulate’ the system to secure victory.

Overburdened courts: The Family Courts are already one of the most backlogged court systems in the UK. It cannot afford to be bogged down in appeals due to erroneous advice given by biased experts. Parties may also feel a sense of helplessness due to the time it takes to secure a court date.

Access to justice: Many people who attend the family courts rely on pro bono and legal aid lawyers to argue their case, stretching resources thin to secure a favourable judgement. If proceedings are unnecessarily prolonged due to erroneous decisions, it could deter people from continuing their cases, allowing injustice to prevail.

How and why a law firm could or would be involved

The current framework should embolden family lawyers, particularly now that the consultation for the FPR’s amendment is still open, to advocate for system reform and ensure that the rules are fair to all parties.

As experts in the field, they may be best placed to offer insights during the consultation as they work closely with families affected by the procedural hurdles of the Family Court. They may also be able to develop guidelines for the training of experts in legal procedure, ensuring that a robust system of checks and balances maintains impartiality.

Fairer proceedings would benefit everyone; families can rest assured that the state has their and their loved ones’ best interests at heart, and family lawyers can deliver advice to their clients with more certainty and faith in the judicial system.

• By Natasha Saeed Ikramullah

LEGAL LEAKS: CYBERATTACKS ON LAW FIRMS

Trust is the cornerstone of the solicitor-client relationship; it encompasses solicitors’ duty to protect their clients’ best interests, including confidential information disclosed during the relationship.

However, with increased cyberattacks in recent years, the security of confidential information is more vulnerable than ever.

Numerous factors could impact the safety of client information, from a firm’s size and resources to its investment in increased digital security measures.

But what happens when this safety is breached?

Overview

In recent years, cyberattacks on firms have increased by 77%. Given the highly sensitive information law firms possess, cybercriminals have started to view them as ideal targets for blackmail and ransom.

Hackers often threaten to publish sensitive information on the dark web or lock firms out of their data until a ransom is paid. Although firms can obtain injunctions against these unknown individuals acting as hackers, the effectiveness of the injunctions in stopping them remains debatable.

These attacks occur because hackers find new ways to circumvent multi-factor authentication measures, which raises concerns about the integrity of digital data platforms and the proactiveness of firms in guarding against attacks.

The Merseyside-based firm DPP Law Ltd faced a cyberattack in 2022, with over 32 GB of data stolen. The firm did not report the attack to the National Crime Agency (NCA) within 72 hours; instead, it waited 43 days.

On 16th April 2025, the Information Commissioner’s Office (ICO) fined the firm £60,000. This was meant to be a warning that data security is not optional but a legal requirement.

Implications of cybersecurity on law firms

Dependence on tech dilemma: Technology is now a fact of life, and law firms cannot avoid using it if they want to remain competitive in an increasingly digital market.

However, storing vast amounts of data on entirely digital platforms instead of physical mediums inevitably increases the risk of a security breach.

Firms must walk the tightrope between drawing the optimal benefit from available technology and ensuring that it does not compromise their entire operation.

Firms’ action plans: The increasing attacks on law and financial firms are a wake-up call to everyone in the industry that hackers are relentless and can find ways around even the most sophisticated technology.

Developing action plans and strategies for protecting their internal systems is crucial to firms’ protection of their reputation and their clients’ information.

How firms can protect themselves against attacks

According to Cert-UK, 65% of law firms have fallen victim to cyberattacks, but 35% of places do not have a cyber mitigation plan. Research from Cyfor Cyber Security found that 90% of top UK law firms faced cyberattack threats.

This explains why 85% of the top 100 UK law firms said they were extremely or somewhat concerned that cyber threats could be obstacles to progress and meeting ambitions.

However, many firms now recognise the necessity of increased security measures:

Strengthening existing protections: Most firms already use a combination of defences such as antivirus and multi-factor authentication. When coupled with timely software updates and security checks, firms ensure that they maintain the integrity of their databases.

Proactive measures: Firms can include proactive defence solutions such as Endpoint Protection Platforms (EPP), which prevent file-based malware attacks, detect threats and respond to security incidents as they occur.

These can also lock down applications to only their approved libraries or computers, providing exceptional protection against unknown threats or attacks.

Dedicated cybersecurity teams: Cyber security teams may be a financial cost for law firms, but when weighed against the costs of cyberattacks, such as loss of reputation and business interruption, they appear to be a necessary investment. Law firms must assess the risk of cost-cutting when in possession of critical information.

Staff training: Firms train personnel to be aware of phishing and other fraudulent attempts. This would not only help reduce the chances of a potential attack, but timely reporting of such incidents could keep firms up to date on the time and manner of threats, enabling them to take stronger proactive measures.

Implementing these measures in everyday operations would ensure that firms maintain their competitive edge and integrity in a world where the risk of data breaches is a constant threat.

• By Natasha Saeed Ikramulah