A US-based online legal services business may have “no choice but to relocate” from London’s booming “silicon roundabout” headquarters and head to a competing EU centre as a result of Brexit, the start-ups founder has told The Brief.

Charley Moore, the chief executive of Rocket Lawyer, which launched in the UK nearly four years ago, issued the warning as the business announced that it was expanding into Europe with the opening today of a Paris office.

“The Brexit vote came as a shock and has created uncertainty for us as we now expand into continental Europe,” Moore said.

“We hope that Brexit may be a temporary political moment that can be changed, rather than a permanent impediment to the continued attractiveness of the UK as a gateway to the European market. Otherwise we may find ourselves with no choice but to relocate our European operations to a true EU country."

His comments came against the backdrop of the unveiling of a joint venture between Rocket Lawyer and Editions Lefebvre Sarrut, a 170-year-old European legal sector publishing company.

Rocket Lawyer primarily pitches its services to smaller businesses that are arguably dissuaded from using traditional law firms because of cost. Its UK launch was marred by a legal action triggered by its competitor LegalZoom, which launched in the UK a year later.

A Nepalese army officer has been acquitted of torture in a landmark case costing millions of pounds that was brought in the UK despite the alleged crime taking place in Nepal.

Colonel Kumar Lama was acquitted at the Old Bailey yesterday in only the second prosecution for state torture offences brought in the UK. The case led to a diplomatic rift between London and Kathmandu.

Prosecutors told a judge at the Old Bailey that there was no longer a realistic prospect of conviction and that they would offer no further evidence in a trial that had lasted 18 months. Lama had already been acquitted of an early charge.

The case was brought in the UK under provisions of the Criminal Justice Act 1988 and the legal principle of universal jurisdiction, which allows the prosecution of individuals for torture and war crimes regardless of where the alleged offence took place.

The cases are rare: Lama’s was the only one of its kind in the UK after that of Faryadi Zardad, an Afghan warlord who was convicted of torture in 2005.

Lawyers said that Lama’s case was likely to set a precedent because the alleged offences were said to have been committed by a serving officer of the armed forces of a country with which the UK has friendly relations and in the course of his official duties.

Lama’s solicitor, Jonathan Grimes, a partner at Kingsley Napley, a London law firm, said: “There have been unacceptable delays in bringing this case to a conclusion, none of which have been any fault of his. He has borne these delays with great patience and good spirit and has always trusted that justice would prevail.”

Grimes said that the case had “run into a number of difficulties, in particular, the complexities arising from the fact that most evidence was in Nepal and in Nepalese and that the witnesses were located in Nepal.

“I hope that the CPS will reflect carefully on its selection and management of this case and will learn lessons for the future.”

Nerves in City of London law firms’ deal departments will be twitching after figures released yesterday showed a sharp decline in merger and acquisitions involving UK companies.

The number of domestic or cross-border deals plummeted by more than half in the last quarter compared with the previous three-month period, according to figures from the Office for National Statistics.

There were 87 deals in those categories in the second quarter of this year involving UK companies, with a total value of £14 billion. That compared with 190 transactions with a total value of £69 billion in the previous quarter.

Exclusively domestic deal-making suffered especially; during the second quarter there were 47 deals with a total value of slightly less than £6 billion. That was down by half on the previous quarter, during which deals were worth nearly £12 billion.

M&A departments across the Square Mile were beset by trepidation in the run-up to the UK referendum on EU membership; these figures will do little to calm post-Brexit jangles among those lawyers.

Couples who conducted their own divorces to save money during the previous recession are now paying the price of failing to agree financial terms, legal experts say.

“During the depths of recession, the lure of a no-frills divorce, completed online for less than £50, prompted a surge in couples going DIY,” Victoria Walker, a partner at Simpson Millar, a national law firm, said.

“But with no legal expertise to hand, thousands of couples made the fatal error of assuming that all ties were cut once the divorce was finalised. That’s sadly not the case and the ghosts of marriage past are now coming back to haunt them in rather costly and unpleasant dramas.”

Family law specialists claim to have seen an increase of cases in which a couple with modest assets divorced without making any financial agreements or signing a consent order. Since then, one party has significantly increased their wealth only then suddenly to receive a financial claim from their former spouse for what is legally their share.

“Former couples who haven’t signed an agreement regarding their finances during the divorce risk having to share any wealth and fortunes accrued since then,” explained Walker. Between 2008 and 2012, 590,944 couples in the UK divorced, with the courts indicating a sharp rise in the number of people representing themselves.

The realisation that previous joint finances need to be addressed is often prompted by retirement or grown-up children leaving home. With property prices increasing dramatically and a growing number of people reaching retirement age, lawyers predict that the trend will continue.

Law chiefs have given barristers appearing in criminal appeals a sharp reminder that they must properly brief themselves on the facts of the case before heading in to court.

The Bar Council’s ethics committee has told barristers who were not original trial counsel but are representing convicted defendants in the criminal division of the Court of Appeal to “check the factual basis for the appeal”. Not doing so, says the committee, risks “criticism and action by the court”.

In an official practice note that bears all the hallmarks of stating the obvious, the ethics committee told barristers to “make inquiries of the legal representative(s) who appeared and acted at the trial in order to ensure that the factual basis for each ground of appeal is correct”. In addition, barristers appearing in appeals should “seek other objective independent evidence to substantiate those facts”.

Andrew Walker, QC, of Maitland Chambers in Lincoln’s Inn and chairman of the ethics committee, explained that in several recent appeal decisions the court “has clarified and emphasised the importance of some particular duties to the court when fresh counsel are instructed to represent a convicted defendant in a criminal appeal.

“When the Court of Appeal highlights an issue such as this, you don’t ignore it.”

Walker went on to warn: “Barristers must not get caught out. The Court of Appeal is clearly concerned that in some cases appeals are being advanced on grounds which turn out to be factually wrong, and has indicated that it will take a strict line with those who do not comply with their duties in this respect. In extreme cases, this could even include referral to the regulator, the Bar Standards Board.”

The board declined to comment on the updated guidance.

Ex-solicitor Choudary jailed for 5½ years over Isis support – The Times

‘Lord Harley’ loses bid for rehearing – Law Gazette

Tchenguiz brothers’ legal bill hits £5.1m in court battle against Grant Thornton – Legal Business

More cash needed to finish Troubles inquests, says law chief – Belfast News Letter

K&L Gates boss Kalis to step down after 20 years – The Lawyer