Britain lost £2 million every day last year because of financial fraud, official figures revealed as lawyers claimed that banks were cracking down on the epidemic.

Nearly £769 million was stolen by financial fraudsters in 2016 – a 2 per cent rise on the previous year, according to the data published yesterday from Financial Fraud Action UK.

The scale of the problem was revealed as a group of large banks and other financial services businesses launched a day of action to raise awareness of financial fraud. The “take five campaign” was designed to encourage the public to learn about the “simple steps they can take to protect themselves from financial fraudsters”, the organisation said.

Lawyers offered banks some support. “The industry appears to be making progress in tackling the problem when one compares the 26 per cent jump in such fraud the previous year,” said Ben Regnard-Weinrabe, a partner at the London office of Paul Hastings, the US law firm.

That lawyer said that research from the firm indicated that “while there continues to be strong growth in new payment methods, with more than 19 billion contactless transactions expected by 2026, consumers remain wary of the fraud risks”.

But he pointed out that risks remain with traditional payment methods, “and providers of new payment methods are often at the vanguard of developing or adopting novel ways of addressing fraud risks, such as the use of tokenisation, which helps drive both product and security innovation”.

A senior barrister who failed to keep clients’ sensitive personal information secure has been fined £1,000 by the Information Commissioner’s Office.

Information belonging to about 250 people – including vulnerable adults and children – was uploaded to the internet when the barrister’s husband updated software on the couple’s home computer.

About 725 unencrypted documents that were created and stored on the computer were temporarily uploaded to an internet directory as a back-up during the software upgrade. They were visible to an internet search engine and some of the documents could be easily accessed through a simple search.

Six of those files contained confidential and highly sensitive information relating to people who were involved in proceedings in the Court of Protection and the Family Court.

Steve Eckersley, head of enforcement at the commissioner’s office said: “People put their trust in lawyers to look after their data – that trust is hard won and easily lost. “This barrister, for no good reason, overlooked her responsibility to protect her clients’ confidential and highly sensitive information. It is hard to imagine the distress this could have caused to the people involved – even if the worst never happened, this barrister exposed her clients to unnecessary worry and upset.”

A spokesman for the office said that decisions to redact names of barristers from the monetary penalty notices was taken on a case by case basis “and in line with our policies and procedures and would include consideration of the impact on an individual”.

“The monetary penalty notice will be published on the ICO website with any confidential or commercially sensitive information redacted if requested,” said the spokesman.

The Bar Standards Board, the profession’s regulator in England and Wales, also declined to reveal the barrister’s identity.

Barrister dumps client files in bin bag

Meanwhile, the BSB fined another barrister £750 for a confidentiality breach after she dumped client papers in a bin bag.

According to a report on the Legal Futures website, Maria Masselis, a criminal law barrister at Linenhall Chambers in Chester, was found to have “improperly handled documents containing confidential and sensitive information about cases she was instructed and failed to take adequate or appropriate security measures against the disposal of such documents resulting in their discovery in the household refuse bin bags”.

Some court rulings are like the dropping of the starting flag at the Grand National – the moment they are handed down a veritable stampede of lawyers rushes to comment. And the case of Heather Ilott and her mother’s will is a perfect example of the phenomenon.

The Supreme Court ruled that Ilott could not have a bigger slice of her mother’s estate because her mother had clearly indicated that most of the cash should go to three well known animal charities.

If there was any consensus, it was that the ruling provided much needed clarity around testamentary law in several key areas.

“Following the Court of Appeal decision some had asked whether there was any point in writing a will,” said Ben Kinnear at Hugh James, the law firm. “The position has now been clarified: the courts are now obliged to pay real attention to a person’s wishes whilst balancing that against the needs of any potential claimant and beneficiaries. However, the key point remains that each case will be judged on its own merits.”

Hard luck, kids

Scott Taylor Barlow Robbins, pointed out that the court had confirmed the freedom of individuals to dispose of their assets however they wish. It was important, he said, that the court “noted that although charities cannot demonstrate a personal need, they depend on testamentary giving for much of their work”.

While Emily Exton at Forsters focussed on the Supreme Court’s view of the responsibilities parents have to their children once they are adults, and how the needs of those children should be weighed against the interests of those whom the deceased has chosen to benefit. “The Supreme Court has confirmed that the freedom to leave your estate to whomever you choose remains a key principle of English law," she said.

That could be a harsh lesson for some children with high expectations, warned Paul Davidoff at Moon Beever. “We now know that, in England and Wales, we can still disinherit our adult children – even in favour of charities,” he said, “provided that they have enough to support themselves.

“If we intend to disinherit a child, we need to bear in mind their financial circumstances. From the child’s point of view, it does not matter if it was unfair or unreasonable to be excluded from inheriting. What is critical is whether, objectively, the child has enough to live off day to day. This can vary enormously – indeed, the child may have dependents of their own.”

Future disputes

But other lawyers still envisaged future disputes. The ruling, said Christopher Noel at Addleshaw Goddard, was a reminder “of the difficulties in balancing competing claims to an estate, and the value judgment likely to be necessary in each case”.

And one lawyer could not resist the temptation to make a joke. “Overturning the judgment in the Court of Appeal,” said Richard Kershaw at Hunters Solicitors, “the Supreme Court has proven not only that charities litigating out of principle and precedent outweigh an undeniable personal need, but have also instilled that charity should not necessarily begin at home.”

What it will take to stay in Blighty

A French citizen who is a long-term resident in England and teaches at a school in the southeast recently expressed profound worry over her right to remain in the UK after the country leaves the EU – despite having a British husband and a child born in Hampshire.

Her concerns, writes Edward Fennell, would have resonated with many in the House of Lords as they attempted to “tie Theresa May's arm behind her back” in the Brexit negotiations over the status of EU citizens resident in the UK. Many peers would take the view that it is deplorable that people who have made a long-term commitment to live in Britain should be left so unclear about their position.

Enter Elspeth Guild and Jessica Jim, lawyers at Kingsley Napley, the London law firm, who have some words of encouragement. Their view is that “for EU nationals who have lived in the UK for substantial periods but have not acquired permanent residence before Brexit, a claim to remain in the UK could be made on the basis of long residence under current UK immigration law”.

There is currently a ten-year residence route, which enables those who have lived in the UK lawfully for that period to apply for indefinite leave to remain in the UK – a status that is not expected to be affected by Brexit.

There’s always a catch

But, unsurprisingly, there are catches. For example, the permitted absence period from the UK during those ten years is no more than 540 days – and a schedule of absences must be provided to the Home Office.

In addition, point out the Kingsley Napley lawyers, “significant documentation will need to be provided to demonstrate the EU national has been living in the UK for the period in accordance with EU law”. That means they were exercising treaty rights as a worker or self-employed person. Alternatively, they may be a student or self-sufficient person, in which case they would need to show they have sufficient resources and should hold comprehensive medical insurance cover in the UK for that period.

Of course, there will many non-British citizens but long-term UK residents who have neither been economically active nor studying. For them, point out the Kingsley Napley lawyers, the alternative is via the 20-year residence rule.

“This may be applicable to those who cannot show they were continuously economically active in the UK for this period. However, it should be noted it grants only discretionary leave to remain for ten years.” The EU national would need to wait a further ten years before applying for indefinite leave to remain.

Human rights law to the rescue

There are also some useful rules covering younger people and those who have no meaningful links with the country to which they might be returned. But, as ever, they could be quite complicated to argue.

If all else fails, there is also the possibility of long-term residents appealing under European human rights law in so far as they have a human right to continue to enjoy a private life here.

“However,” warn the lawyers, “if after Brexit the UK government decides to withdraw from the European Convention on Human Rights, this claim may fall away.”

CMS Cameron McKenna and Pinsents to share £1m legal fees for KWM collapse – Legal Week

'Panic' over legal aid contract deadline – Law Gazette

Washington DC firm partner convicted of insider trading – The American Lawyer