Disabled woman loses challenge against assessment of care needs based on unlawful reliance on third party

By Mitchell Skilling

Jodie Taylor, who moved to South Lanarkshire with her mother in December 2022, contended that the respondents had unlawfully reduced her hours of non-residential social care in breach of the public sector equality duty. The respondents contended that her approach misconstrued the factual position, and that the decision provided for 100 per cent of her needs as assessed by them to be provided without third party assistance.

The petition was considered by Lord Lake, with M Dailly, solicitor advocate, appearing for the petitioner and D Blair, advocate, for the respondents.

Relying on third party

Until December 2022, the petitioner lived in an area for which East Renfrewshire Council was her local authority. Following a community care needs assessment by that Council, she received a care package paid for by the Council amounting to a total of 61 hours per week. This included six hours of respite care for her mother with whom she lived and who provided a substantial amount of care for her.

When the petitioner moved to the area of South Lanarkshire Council, the respondents carried out a new assessment of her needs in terms of the Social Work (Scotland) Act 1968 and provided her with a draft support plan. They were unable to complete the plan within the 12-week period and therefore undertook to continue the level of support provided by East Renfrewshire Council during the process, without prejudice to the support package that would be provided after the work was completed.

The respondent’s completed assessment, issued in 2023, proposed the petitioner be provided with 54.5 hours of support, less than provided previously, prompting her to make a complaint. In a letter dated 19 July 2024, the respondents summarised the support plan they were willing to make available, under which they would provide 39.5 hours of support with the remaining 15 provided via an application to the Independent Living Fund the petitioner would have to apply for herself. If she did not wish to proceed with this application, the plan would revert to 48.5 hours per week.

For the petitioner it was submitted that, in relying on a third party to provide part of the support assessed as required, the respondents had acted ultra vires. It was noted that a published policy in relation to the Fund states that “ILF Scotland funds are not designed to meet statutory needs as assessed by a Health and Social Care Provider”. The respondents submitted that the level of support required was assessed as 48.5 hours, and the ILF plan would augment that base level of support.

Confusion set in

In his decision, Lord Lake began by observing: “It seems that part of the petitioner’s concern about a reduction in the proposed provision of care stems from the fact that what the respondents will provide is less than was provided by East Renfrewshire Council. The respondents emphasised that this was not an appropriate contrast as it was not comparing like with like as the East Renfrewshire Council support package included some respite care which theirs does not. However, the key point is that it is not appropriate to compare the respondent’s figure with that for East Renfrewshire Council and consider it a reduction.”

He continued: “It is also possible to see why some confusion has set in as to precisely what level of support had been assessed as being needed and what level would be provided by the respondent. The proposed support plan provided is set out in a way which makes it look as if part of the support necessary to cover the critical and substantial risks would be provided by the ILF. It appears at first that the Council would only provide 39 hours support as opposed to the 48.5 hours. However, on careful reading of the letter, it is apparent that the respondent accepted all along that they would provide 48.5 hours in order to meet the assessed need for care.”

Noting the respondents were willing to provide 48.5 hours of care themselves, Lord Lake said: “The conclusion that when the offer from the respondents is properly construed it does not represent a level of care less than has been assessed to be required is an answer to all the petitioner’s grounds of challenge. The respondents are not relying on discretionary funding from the ILF in order to meet assessed need. They are using it to provide something in addition to the assessed need.”

He concluded: “Although there might be an arrangement whereby the ILF provide some element of care required to address critical or substantial risks, that is not a necessary element of the proposed plan and the respondents will provide a baseline level that is sufficient. They have therefore not acted in a way that is ultra vires. Neither can it be said their decision meets the high test for irrationality.”

For these reasons, the petition was refused.

Maggie Chapman doubles down on attack on judges

Maggie Chapman

Speaking in Aberdeen at the weekend she referred to the “bigotry, prejudice and hatred that we see coming from the Supreme Court” – remarks which have been met with disbelief.

Asked if she was considering her position, she told reporters: “No, I’m not considering my position. There are plenty of politicians in Scotland prepared to stand up and represent people with transphobic views, people who don’t think trans people should be out in public, should be allowed to use public facilities, like the rest of us do.

“I am committed to standing up for trans people in our country.”

Writing to the Equalities, Human Rights and Civil Justice Committee, of which Ms Chapman is deputy convenor, Dean of Faculty, Roddy Dunlop KC, said her comments were “appalling”.

He wrote: “For Ms Chapman to claim that they [the justices] were swayed by “bigotry, prejudice and hatred” is outrageous. We are talking about the apex court of these islands, in this instance made up of a bench which included two of Scotland’s finest legal minds, as well as two women. No sensible person could read their dispassionate analysis and conclude that they were swayed by such matters.”

Scottish Tory shadow equalities minister Tess White said: “Her outrageous attack on the integrity of the highest court in the land and her refusal to accept its legal ruling demonstrate her blind prejudice on gender self-ID and make her position as Deputy Convenor of the Equalities Committee completely untenable.”

The Supreme Court said it does not comment on its judgments.

Elouisa Crichton: The Supreme Court’s ruling on ‘woman’ in the Equality Act

Elouisa Crichton

The lines by which we are categorising people for the purpose of the Equality Act have not just been firmed up but have essentially changed when compared to the existing guidance and how organisations operated. Looking at the term “woman” we now know that legally this means grouping non-trans women, and trans men, together: those who are female on their birth certificate. Non-trans men and trans women are categorised as “men”, are all male on their birth certificates and are grouped together.

Let’s explore what this means in practice.

What the court decided

In For Women Scotland Ltd v The Scottish Ministers [2025] UKSC 16, the Supreme Court ruled that:

• The terms “woman,” “man,” and “sex” in the Equality Act refer to biological sex at birth (the sex as per the birth certificate).
• This definition applies regardless of whether a person holds a Gender Recognition Certificate (GRC).
• The ruling applies across England, Scotland and Wales, as the Equality Act covers these nations.

While the case stemmed from the question of whether trans women with GRCs should count toward female representation targets on public boards, its implications extend much further into everyday situations. This interpretation takes effect now: legally it is a clarification of what was always the case but was previously understood differently by many.

Impact on equal pay claims

The ruling has specific implications for equal pay claims:

• Equal pay claims have special rules requiring comparison with someone of the opposite sex.
• Under the new interpretation, a trans woman would need to compare herself to a woman (not a man) for equal pay purposes.
• Alternative routes may be available, such as direct discrimination claims based on perception, though these are different types of claims with different legal tests.

Protections for trans people remain

The court took care to emphasise that trans people continue to have significant legal protections:

• Gender reassignment protection: All trans people remain protected against discrimination on the basis of gender reassignment. There is no suggestion that the ruling would limit the use of preferred pronouns.
• Perception-based protection: If a trans person is discriminated against because they are perceived to be a particular sex, they can still claim sex discrimination based on their acquired gender. Many aspects of the Equality Act do not require a person to legally be a particular sex in order for them to be protected. So careful reading of the law is required to understand which parts have been affected by this ruling and which have not.

The broader legal landscape

It’s important to recognise that while the Supreme Court’s ruling provides clarity on the Equality Act’s interpretation, it exists within a complex legal framework:

• Health and safety legislation: Workplace regulations require adequate facilities for all employees, with specific requirements for male and female facilities in many cases, and the reality in the UK being that the use of designated male and female spaces is common so that is the framework we are starting from.
• Facility design matters: Simply changing signage to “gender neutral” is insufficient—health and safety regulations often require specific configurations for gender-neutral facilities, such as a room that locks from the inside/sinks inside the room.
• Employee wellbeing: Obligations to staff extend to psychological wellbeing, with employers having a duty of care to all employees, some of whom may feel particularly vulnerable following this ruling.
• Potential for further developments: This may not be the final word, as there could be further cases, legislative updates, and we expect further guidance.
• Equality and Human Rights Commission (EHRC) has announced it will update its guidance to reflect the Supreme Court’s ruling. It has been clear publicly that it expects organisations to comply with the ruling and that it has enforcement powers.

Single-sex spaces: a balanced approach

The judgment has implications for how single-sex spaces operate. Finding respectful and appropriate solutions to comply with the judgment remains essential:

• Previous practice questioned: The ruling challenges the previous common practice of allowing people to use facilities matching their acquired gender regardless of GRC status. This was never set out in the Equality Act but was the common practice reflected in guidance and most policies.
• Legal position clarified: Single-sex spaces under the Equality Act must now be organised according to biological sex at birth.
• Proportionality remains key: There are limits on when these single / same sex provision can be used so at the outset there is a need to be proportionate. This could include looking again in each case on whether a single sex route is still appropriate given our changed understanding of what that means in practice (i.e. grouping women and trans men, rather than women and trans women, as a starting point). There are many scenarios where single sex spaces will still be appropriate ranging from toilets/changing facilities, to crisis support for women.
• Exceptions can still be used: Once it has been established that a single / same sex space is appropriate, the Equality Act allows for exclusion of trans people from such spaces, again where this is proportionate (and regardless of whether the person holds a GRC). Prior to this ruling we would have understood this to mean an exclusion of a trans women from a female space; but now, this exclusion would be of a trans male from a female space (and vice versa).
• Risk of “outing”: Requiring trans people to use facilities matching their birth sex (or even to move to a gender neutral facility) could effectively “out” them, creating privacy concerns and potential distress. When it comes to trans history, some individuals are openly trans, and other live by their acquired sex with their birth sex being known only to themselves and potentially a small number of people in the HR department for example. Any change in practice to use a facility of the opposite sex or a neutral facility risks “outing” these individuals.

Different organisations have different capabilities and constraints. Smaller organisations may already have only single-occupancy, non-gendered facilities, in which case no changes may be needed because facilities are not split on the basis of sex. Others may currently only have male, female and potentially separate accessible spaces. They will need to consider how to provide appropriate facilities for all users while complying with the ruling. They may find that they are limited in terms of space and resources and will need to think carefully about what solutions are possible and required. Large organisations often have more options, potentially including a mix of male, female, accessible, and gender-neutral facilities

Greater choice in facilities helps provide proportionate solutions. When gender-neutral or private spaces are used by many people, this minimises the risk of their use being conspicuous or inadvertently “outing” trans individuals.

While the ruling applies immediately, it may be that businesses take some time to make practical changes and are likely to be awaiting further guidance to be issued.

Five practical next steps

Organisations now face the challenge of implementing policies that comply with the law while respecting everyone’s dignity. Consider:

1. Engaging with affected groups to understand concerns and find workable solutions and communicate the continued commitment to respect and support for everyone.  This includes reminding everyone of existing protections against harassment and discrimination and explaining to people what the ruling has said and any practical changes.
2. Be mindful of privacy. This means not making inappropriate inquires. There can be significant legal consequences for disclosing gender recognition certificate status. Information about trans status must be handled sensitively.
3. Look carefully at your current set up and the relevant health and safety provisions. It is key to understand what facilities you have, and what is required before looking at possible changes. Where feasible, providing a mix of facilities would be helpful, including gender-neutral options alongside single-sex spaces. Care needs to be taken to ensure that accessible facilities are still available and sufficient for those who need them keeping in mind that disabled employees may need more time or to use facilities without delay.
4. Record the considerations that inform your approach. This can help to explain why an approach was taken and viewed as proportionate (for example why a single sex space is appropriate and whether any lawful exceptions have been applied regarding the use of those facilities by trans individuals). This will help to make informed choices and could act as important justification for any action you take which may impact on a person’s rights.
5. Take legal advice on your specific situation given the number of interrelated considerations and the significance of your response.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court’s ruling provides legal clarity on the definition of sex in the Equality Act. Implementing this requires careful consideration of everyone’s rights and needs.
The path forward involves ensuring legal compliance while acting with compassion – recognising that behind legal definitions are people whose experiences and needs matter equally. Listen, engage, and approach these challenges with respect and consideration for all involved.

Elouisa Crichton is a partner at Dentons

Scottish government to amend gender guidance following Supreme Court defeat

Social Justice Secretary Shirley-Anne Somerville said that the Scottish government was looking at updating its guidance on single-sex spaces.

“The Scottish government does, of course, accept the judgment of the Supreme Court,” she said.

“It is a significant legal ruling and it is right that we take time to consider it.”

She said it was “important to recognise the tone and the temperature of the surrounding debate”.

“It should be clear to all of us in this chamber, regardless of our view on any of those matters, including the judgment last Wednesday, that it has had a very significant impact on people,” she added.

Ms Somerville said the ruling had caused “real anxiety” in trans and non-binary people. She added: “It is significant that the Supreme Court stated that their judgment that the rights of the trans community are enshrined in law and I want to reassure our trans community that you are valued and the Scottish government is fully committed to protecting everyone’s rights and that includes your community.”

She also said that the judgment had “confirmed the definition of the woman under the Equality Act”, and called on the Equality and Human Rights Commission (EHRC) to furnish updated guidance on the impact of the decision.

She added: “We are amending guidance on the public boards legislation to take account of the ruling.”

Earlier on, Prime Minister Keir Starmer said “a woman is an adult female” when asked whether he believed trans women were woman in the wake of the ruling.

Mr Starmer told ITV West Country: “I think the Supreme Court has answered that question.”

Asked if that meant he did not believe a transgender woman is a woman, Mr Starmer said: “A woman is an adult female, and the court has made that absolutely clear.”

Malcolm Cannon named new COO of Levy & McRae

Malcolm Cannon

Mr Cannon joins the firm with a wealth of experience in both industry and in the legal sector.

He has held legal roles at Maclay Murray & Spens, ESPC and Simpson and Marwick.

David McKie, senior partner of the firm, said: “We are absolutely delighted to welcome Malcolm to the firm. His experience and skills in multiple sectors will enhance the holistic and innovative approach we have always taken to the business. He will help maintain and renew our focus as we enter new territories in the law with the advancement of digital technologies and flexible working arrangements.”

Mr Cannon added: “I am absolutely thrilled to be joining such an innovative and forward-thinking firm. I was struck by the energy and enthusiasm of the firm, which is clear from its diverse and high profile practice areas. I look forward to working with L&M’s committed and driven team to maintain and enhance their reputation as one of the leading niche practices in Scotland.”

Jamie Apted joins Aberdein Considine

Mr Apted, who will be based in the firm’s Caddell House offices on Glasgow’s Waterloo Street, joins from the London Metal Exchange, having previously worked at the Financial Ombudsman Service and in private practice.

Myra Scott, partner and head of the Lender Services Practice Group, said: “We’re delighted to welcome Jamie Apted to our fantastic team, which continues to go from strength to strength. Jamie has forged a strong track record in recoveries and will be a real asset to our offering, adding depth and breadth to the team as we maintain and further enhance our award-winning service to lender clients across the UK.

“Jamie’s experience at the Ombudsman and London Metal Exchange has equipped him with a deep understanding of financial regulation in contentious contexts, as well as valuable insights into effective operations within a highly regulated environment.”

Mr Apted said: “Aberdein Considine has a fantastic reputation for financial services litigation and stands out as a leader in the UK lender services market, representing some of the top names in banking.

“I am thrilled to join the team and bring nearly a decade of experience in financial services disputes, which includes time spent at the Ombudsman and in one of the world’s major investment exchanges. I look forward to using my expertise to support Aberdein Considine’s clients.”

Ex-nurse who stalked woman after matching on dating app jailed again for breaching non-harassment order

Adele Rennie, 34, from Kilmarnock, pled guilty at the town’s Sheriff Court yesterday. She admitted contacting a woman she had previously been banned from approaching.

Rennie had been jailed in September last year and made subject of a five-year non-harassment order. This banned her from approaching, contacting or attempting to contact the woman, whom she had targeted during an elaborate ‘catfishing’ scam.

Rennie was released from jail on 13 January this year but remained registered as a sex offender and subject to monitoring and restrictions. She had been free for just 10 days when she sent a text message to the female victim.

Rennie was found to have flouted the non-harassment order on 23 January when a social worker was made aware of messages sent to the previous victim.

David Bernard, procurator fiscal for North Strathclyde, said: “The law will not tolerate Adele Rennie’s refusal to abide by the strict restrictions placed upon her. Prosecutors at COPFS will respond robustly to keep the community safe from distressing and damaging behaviour like stalking.

“We recognise the trauma suffered by some victims of this insidious crime and court orders will be enforced at the earliest opportunity should a perpetrator such as Rennie attempt to reoffend.

“I would encourage anyone who has been the victim of such offending to come forward, report it and seek support.”

Today’s was the latest conviction for Rennie who was also jailed in 2017 for stalking a number of women while pretending to be a man. She used a voice-altering app to change the tone of her speech and utilised a number of aliases including David Graham, David Crolla, Davie, Marco and Matthew Mancini.

Glasgow University hosts Brown-Mosten Competition

Students from 20 countries took part in the competition, in which they interviewed mock clients in teams of two. The competition tests issues such as their ability to gain the client’s confidence and give preliminary advice.

This year’s theme was consumer contracts. While the Scottish team reached the semi-final rounds, the top three places were taken by Canada and New Zealand (joint second) and Sri Lanka, who took the title. 

The event was sponsored by the Law Society of Scotland and Stewart & Osborne Solicitors.

The BMICCC finished with an Award Ceremony in the Kelvingrove Art Gallery and Museum on the Saturday evening.

BTO announces The House of Hope as charity of the year

Caroline Carr

Set to open later in 2025, The House of Hope will be Scotland’s first permanent, bespoke community-based wellbeing centre dedicated to supporting anyone impacted by breast cancer. 

The charity was founded by Lisa Fleming, who was diagnosed with secondary breast cancer in 2017. Since her diagnosis, she has become a passionate advocate within the cancer community, successfully raising over £2 million for secondary breast cancer research.

Inspired to make a lasting difference, she established The House of Hope with the support of the charity’s advisory board and her husband, Euan Fleming, a partner in BTO’s wills, estates and succession planning team.

Ms Fleming said: “I am delighted that BTO has very kindly chosen to support The House of Hope Scotland as its nominated charity this year. I can’t thank you and your team enough for this assistance.

“Opening the house has been a long-term goal of mine since my own diagnosis, and to see it becoming a reality thanks to such incredible local support means the world.”

Caroline Carr, chair of BTO, commented: “The House of Hope holds a special significance for many of us at BTO, particularly those who work closely with Euan.

“Lisa’s courage, passion and vision are truly inspiring. Her determination to create a place of peace, positivity and support for those affected by breast cancer perfectly aligns with our firm’s values, and we are honoured to support this incredible cause. We can’t wait to start helping Lisa, Euan and the House of Hope team achieve their goals.”

The firm’s Charity & Social Committee has already begun its fundraising efforts, with several team members taking part in the Glasgow Kiltwalk this weekend. A full calendar of fundraising activities is planned throughout 2025 to help bring Lisa’s vision to life.

Alumni In Conversation: Slavery and the Scottish Enlightenment

Credit: Edinburgh Law School

Professor Cairns and Mr Fulton will discuss how the Scottish Enlightenment is entwined with slavery and the slave trade, reflecting on its historical and present-day impact on the Scottish legal system, society, and beyond.

The talk will be followed by a drinks reception.

Register here

Five Scottish Legal Walks later this year

Four have been confirmed so far:

• Falkirk Legal Walk on Sunday 21.9
• Glasgow Legal Walk on Wednesday 24.9
• Edinburgh Legal Walk on Wednesday 1.10
• Aberdeen Legal Walk on Wednesday 8.10

More information is available here.

Quote of the day

I’m not going to apologise, no.

Maggie Chapman MSP, speaking yesterday

Life is hard. It’s a whole lot harder if you’re stupid.

George V. Higgins (1970)

Losing power, utterly and completely, is the most dreadful prospect that a politician can think of. It overshadows everything else.

Fred Hoyle, ‘The Black Cloud’ (1957)

And finally… another day at the office

The Missouri Legislature passed Senate Bill 22, which allows politicians to rewrite ballot summary language up to three times, even after courts have ruled it unlawful.

It also lets the attorney general block measures led by citizens and allows politicians to collude on ballot language in order to obtain their preferred outcome on citizen-initiated and legislatively-referred ballot measures.

“This bill is meant to undermine the will and power of people and is a prime example of political overreach,” said Abby Herndon, a volunteer with Missouri Jobs with Justice. 

“When our elected officials don’t help or listen to their constituents, we the people still have a voice and power through the initiative petition process. But now the legislature is trying to rig the system against one of the oldest forms of direct democracy.”

Ultimate Guide to Legal Workflow Automation for Law Firms

New technologies and modern workplace models transforming how firms operate. In fact, 81% of law firms plan to ramp up their use of legal automation tools - especially case management software - by 2026.

But what exactly is legal workflow automation? Why are some firms still hesitant to adopt it? And how can you ensure your firm gets it right?

In this article, we break down the biggest automation trends reshaping the legal world, explore which tasks your firm should be automating, and show how Denovo is helping firms boost productivity, accuracy, and profit.

Read the full article to discover how automation is shaping the future of legal practice - https://www.denovobi.com/blog/ultimate-guide-to-legal-workflow-automation-for-law-firms.

Shaping the Future of Scottish Law Firms: How Robertson Murdie is Leading the Way with Cashroom & Clio

To achieve that vision, Robertson Murdie has partnered with two of the legal industry’s most forward-thinking providers: Cashroom and Clio.

Why Cashroom?

Rather than building an in-house finance team or relying on traditional outsourcing, Robertson Murdie selected Cashroom to manage its legal cashiering and financial operations.
Jamie Robertson explains their choice:

“What set Cashroom apart was that it is not a Practice Management Software (PMS) provider bolting on cashiering services. Legal accounting is what Cashroom lives and breathes—nothing else… We now have the confidence of knowing that our financial processes are managed by professionals who truly understand the complexities of legal financial regulations… Partnering with Cashroom was a strategic decision to ensure not just efficiency, but also full regulatory compliance.”

Key benefits of choosing Cashroom included:

• Regulatory Expertise: Co-founded by Les Cummings, then Chief Accountant at the Law Society of Scotland, Cashroom has had Scottish compliance at its core since inception.
• Scalability & Flexibility: With a 150-strong team of legal finance experts, Cashroom provides a scalable service model that grows with the firm.
• System Agnosticism: Unlike other providers tied to specific PMS platforms, Cashroom integrates with any system—allowing Robertson Murdie to choose Clio as their preferred platform.
• Security: Cashroom’s custom-built portal with Cyber Essentials Plus certification provides secure, encrypted financial data transfer—far surpassing the outdated reliance on email still used by others.

Chris O’Day, CEO of Cashroom, shared: “We are thrilled to welcome Robertson Murdie to the Cashroom family. As a worldwide organisation, we continue to see innovation and excellence thrive in Scotland. Our collaboration is a perfect example of how forward-thinking firms can leverage both legal financial expertise and cutting-edge technology to build the next generation of law firms.”

Why Clio?

Clio’s powerful, cloud-based Practice Management Software stood out for its usability and seamless integration.

David Murdie, having used Clio as previously, noted: “The system gives the ability to design workflows… Clio’s most appealing feature is the app integration, meaning we have excellent data consolidation and a lack of duplication… The semi-automation of client onboarding is a massive bonus. So far, so good – our printer hasn’t arrived yet, and we haven’t missed it!”

Clio’s key advantages include:

• Scottish-Specific Compliance features
• Automated Workflows to streamline time tracking, billing, and document management
• Anytime, Anywhere Access via cloud-based tools
• Clio-Cashroom Integration, enabling real-time financial visibility

A Blueprint for Scottish Legal Innovation

By prioritising outsourced financial management and cloud-based legal tech, Robertson Murdie is avoiding the costly and inflexible structures of traditional firms. Their fixed-fee model, tech-forward strategy, and scalable operations signal a new era in Scottish legal services.

Jamie Robertson adds: “We’re really excited to develop our relationship with Cashroom and Clio… We’re an ambitious pair and one of our strategies is to scale by acquisition. Ultimately, if we’re not built to scale then that particular branch of our business strategy fails… Chris didn’t blink when we told him our plans. A great start!”

As more Scottish firms explore new ways of working, Robertson Murdie provides a real-world example of how innovation and smart partnerships can deliver lasting success.

“Seeing a promising new startup like Robertson Murdie adopt legal technology from day one is refreshing and positive. Not only does it help shape their business by positioning them for efficiency, compliance, and hopefully long-term success, but the adoption of both Clio and Cashroom, who are partners of the Law Society of Scotland, also contributes to the future of how legal practices are run in Scotland.”

Jack Rowberry, Business Development Manager, Law Society of Scotland

Want to learn how Cashroom and Clio can transform your law firm? Get in touch today and discover the power of modern legal technology and financial expertise.
Clio and Cashroom are both Law Society of Scotland Approved Suppliers 2025.

Read the full article on the Cashroom website here: www.thecashroom.co.uk/shaping-the-future-of-scottish-law-firms

Hatch new plans this Easter and join the list for Plug & Play Law

Are you thinking of hatching new plans this Easter for your next move in legal practice? If you complete the Easter Plug & Play Law Scorecard, you will find out if Plug & Play Law is a good fit for you. You are then on our list and we will be in touch soon to see if we can hatch plans together in 2025.

Time to spring into action and complete the Plug & Play Law Scorecard now!

What is Plug & Play Law?

Plug & Play is a term coined by Mitch Kowalski in his book ‘The Great Legal Reformation: Notes from the Field’. A book that features Inksters.

Mitch Kowalski refers to Plug & Play Platforms when describing law firms such as Inksters who have developed a model where senior lawyers can work as a collective, with enhanced technology and back-office support.

Inksters and Plug & Play Law

Inksters is the foremost Plug & Play Law firm in Scotland. Specifically with, by far, the largest number of consultant solicitors and the greatest geographical reach. Inksters have operated and perfected this model for 12 years and been in business as a law firm for 26 years.

The Nine Benefits of Plug & Play Law

Inksters’ Plug & Play Law model gives you nine benefits as a self-employed consultant in a fee-sharing law firm compared to setting up on your own or with others or, indeed, being employed by or in partnership with other solicitors. You:

• Can just do law
• Have complete flexibility on your own terms
• Get the reward for what you do via a fee-share
• Reduce your costs
• Get all the benefits that a larger organisation can offer
• Become part of an award winning law firm
• Have access to a diverse range of clients
• Have the best technology to assist you
• Get Brian Inkster

Are you a good fit for Plug & Play Law?

Find out if you are a good fit for Plug & Play Law by completing the Easter Scorecard now.