The trigger firing the starting gun on Britain’s exit from the EU can only be pulled by an act of parliament, more than 1,000 barristers have told the prime minister in an open letter published today.

The lawyers from chambers across the country also told David Cameron that MPs should be allowed a free vote on proposed legislation that would implement Article 50, the technical mechanism that would begin the departure process.

The signatories maintain that while last month’s referendum result – a 52 per cent to 48 per cent vote in favour of leaving the bloc – was not legally binding on parliament, it “must be acknowledged”.

However, the barristers say other factors must also be considered, including the positions of Scotland, Northern Ireland and Gibraltar, whose populations voted against leaving the EU. The lawyers also claim there is “objective evidence of the benefits, costs and risks of departure” and that MPs “should take into account what it is that the UK hopes to achieve from negotiations”.

The letter calls on Cameron to launch a royal commission or equivalent independent body “as a matter of urgency”. It would “receive evidence and report, within a short, fixed timescale, on the benefits, costs and risks of triggering Article 50 to the UK as a whole, and to all of its constituent populations”.

The lawyers maintain that any parliamentary vote should not take place until that review has reported.

Philip Kolvin, QC, of Cornerstone Barristers in Gray’s Inn, who co-ordinated the letter and the 1,053 signatories, said: “Parliament is sovereign and the guardian of our democracy.

“MPs are elected to exercise their best judgment on the basis of objective evidence, to safeguard the interests of the country and their constituents for this and future generations. At this time of profound constitutional, political and possibly social and economic crisis, we look to them to fulfil the responsibility placed upon them.”

Individuals and small businesses are ill-served by lawyers because of confusion over fees and responsibilities, a damning report from the competition watchdog has found.

A “lack of transparency” regarding price and services means that consumers struggle to understand whether they are receiving value for money from their high street, and in some cases, business, lawyers, the Competition and Markets Authority said.

However, the authority’s final view – that it is not necessary to launch a market investigation in England and Wales – will have sent a frisson of relief through the legal profession establishment.

But despite dodging that bullet, senior lawyer representatives will be concerned by much of the authority’s hard language and criticism in its interim “legal services market study”.

“A lack of transparency of price and service make it harder for consumers to compare providers and identify value for money,” the report said. “It may also allow providers to negotiate prices on an individual basis rather than committing to standard prices.”

The watchdog claimed the effect of that situation was to “undermine competition, reducing the incentives for providers to compete on price, quality and innovation”.

Under fire, senior legal profession figures attempted to defend the status quo. “The market for legal services is already competitive and solicitors offer exceptional services to their clients, said Catherine Dixon, the chief executive of the Law Society, which represents solicitors in the jurisdiction.

And she acknowledged that “making information available about the range of services and ensuring that pricing information is on offer to clients to enable them to judge on quality and price is always important”. Dixon claimed that recent researched showed that “solicitors were already more likely than other advisers to provide information on costs and indicate how long the work would take”.

Chantal-Aimée Doerries, QC, the leader of the Bar Council, which represents barristers, said her organisation “looks forward to engaging with the CMA ... to consider ways in which information about the services provided by the Bar, compared with unregulated legal service providers, might be improved for the benefit of consumers”.

Stirring the regulation debate

The two main combatants in the continuing row over the future of legal profession regulation both claimed succour from the competition watchdog’s report. But the Solicitors Regulation Authority probably had more to cheer about than the Law Society.

The report found conclusively that “independence of a regulator from the providers that it regulates is a key principle”. It also drew attention to submissions from the SRA that “despite functional separation, the Law Society can, and has, impeded pro-competitive initiatives in relation to the alternative business structure licensing rules”.

The CMA also gave a potential boost to the Legal Services Board – the current overarching regulator – and its campaign to create a single frontline regulator for lawyers. The report described the regulatory regime as “complex, with nine arms-length regulators overseen by the LSB”.

It went on to say that “there might be benefits in reducing the number of regulators”, citing a “potential to reduce costs, avoid duplication of regulation, improve regulatory independence and allow the remaining regulator(s) to encourage competition and move to a more risk-based approach”.

A second UK company has cut a deal with fraud prosecutors in a landmark arrangement that involves its parent business lending the funds so it can pay a fine rather than face a long court trial, officials announced on Friday.

As forecast in The Brief last week, the second-ever deferred prosecution agreement was approved by Sir Brian Leveson, the president of the Queen’s Bench Division of the High Court. According to the Serious Fraud Office, the unnamed company will pay a fine of more than £6.5 million.

The company, which the SFO described as a small or medium-sized business and which The Brief understands to be based in south Yorkshire, was accused of conspiracy to corrupt and bribe as well as allegedly failing to prevent bribery between 2004 and 2012. All of the allegations, which fell under the Criminal Law Act 1977 and the Bribery Act 2010, concerned subsidiary supply-chain contracts abroad.

The business’s parent company implemented a global compliance programme in late 2011. In August 2012, that programme triggered concerns over the way in which the smaller business had dealt with several contracts.

The SFO said that the smaller business took immediate action, retaining a law firm that undertook an independent internal investigation. The law firm delivered a report to fraud investigators in January 2013, after which the SFO conducted its own investigation.

In court, Leveson said the agreement “provides an example of the value of self-report and co-operation along with the introduction of appropriate compliance mechanisms, all of which can only improve corporate attitudes to bribery and corruption”.

David Green, QC, the SFO director said the case “raised the issue about how the interests of justice are served in circumstances where the company accused of criminality has limited financial means with which to fulfil the terms of a DPA but demonstrates exemplary co-operation.

“The decision as to whether to force a company into insolvency must be balanced with the level and nature of co-operation and this case provides a clear example to corporates.”

White-collar crime lawyers suggested this second agreement had been some time in the making. “The SFO has been negotiating with the company’s lawyers for many, many months,” said Peter Binning, a partner at Corker Binning, a London law firm. He said the case highlighted “the question of how far a holding company can be held responsible for paying the criminal penalties that a prosecutor wants to impose for the acts of its subsidiary.

“Here the court has approved a pragmatic solution to the problem and the DPA ... has set out why an innocent holding company should pay up in these circumstances."

Sir Cliff Richard is threatening a £1 million legal claim for misuse of private information over a raid on his home in 2014, it was reported yesterday.

Lawyers for the singer are understood to have written to the BBC and to South Yorkshire police, the force that conducted the search while investigating him over allegations historical of sexual abuse.

Richard was told last month that he would face no charges after being investigated for nearly two years but has said that he believes the allegations have caused lasting damage to his reputation.

The Sunday Times said that friends of Richard claim the 75-year-old is hoping that a lawsuit action will deter police forces and the media in future from naming suspects in sex abuse investigations before they have been charged. Richard learnt he was a suspect only after the BBC broadcast live footage of police officers searching his home in Sunningdale, Berkshire, while he was out of the country.

Last night a source close to the star told a newspaper that he had not taken the decision “to take on two British institutions lightly”. The source went on to claim that the legal letters are only the first step and that Richard may ultimately settle with the BBC and South Yorkshire police. They said the police and the BBC had been given a month to respond.

Contract detail will be vital

Law firms are pouring out comment about Brexit speculating on where we are now, where we are going and how to mitigate the problems, writes Edward Fennell.

As one might be tempted to say to candidates for the prime ministership: this is not the occasion for optimism – that was for the japes of the referendum campaign – what we want are the facts.

Shakespeare Martineau, a Birmingham-based law firm, plausibly suggests that the country is the calm before the inevitable economic storm.

And that storm is inevitable, argues the firm, because once Article 50 is triggered, “we have no possibility whatsoever of renegotiating the trade agreements within the two-year deadline set, as it will take this long just to get all the inter-governmental approvals.

“And there is no chance the two-year deadline will be extended since this would require a unanimous EU vote. So the reality is that we will be stuck with the default World Trade Organisation rules governing our international trading on Brexit, which means no relief from import-export taxes or customs costs.”

Any comfort that this only applies to big international corporations is an illusion, the lawyer gloom-mongers continue. “These trade agreements affect all UK businesses, not just large multinationals, because today all supply chains cross borders, involving a complex matrix of imports and exports, however small or domestic a business.”

Every man and woman – and business – for themselves, appears to be the message from Shakespeare Martineau. But before you thrust your head in the oven, the firm produces a list of recommendations for surviving the Brexit storm. But they boil down to being very alert and paying attention to the smallest details in contracts.

A “key question”, says the firm, is: “Did UK business learn the lessons of the last recession? Advice to businesses as we pulled out of the recession was to remember how keenly lawyers will pore over contract wording when looking for an ‘out’ in hard times, so it is vital not to gloss over contract detail when you're keen to sign up a new deal.

“Clients often skim over the boring points in the Ts and Cs in their eagerness to crack open the champagne. Those that took heed of this advice then will be in a stronger position when this next storm hits.”

Elite law firms sanguine on Brexit fallout – Financial Times

Venezuela detains suspect linked to Panama Papers law firm – Reuters

Former Deputy PM Prescott has turned on Blair and says the Iraq War was illegal – Sunday Mirror

Retiring judge uses farewell speech to blast CPS and police – Daily Telegraph

India liberalisation plans draw objection from national law society – Legal Week

Why paralegals hate their law firms – The Lawyer

Woman who is a lawyer by day, RNLI lifesaver by night – Daily Telegraph