Michelmores’ Corporate team has advised the leading Cerebral Palsy charity, Paces Sheffield on its bond offer which is currently being promoted by Triodos Bank and was launched on their crowdfunding website in June. Investors are invited to support the specialist school which offers life-changing skills for children with Cerebral Palsy and other neurological motor disorders. The bond offer will raise capital to support the charity’s ambitious growth plans including a new premises which will enable the school to increase its capacity by 75%.

The team has also advised Mama Bamboo on its EIS share offer, likewise listed on Triodos’ website. Mama Bamboo’s award winning sustainable baby products are made using 100% compostable bamboo fibre and the company is the only UK nappy brand to be B-Corp certified. The company aims to raise over £500,000 to support the marketing and technology required to accelerate sales growth. As an early stage and growth company, Mama Bamboo’s share offer qualifies under the EIS tax relief scheme, as assured by HMRC in May.

Corporate partner, Alexandra Watson led the Michelmores team with support from Adam Quint and Jess Hopkins.

Alex said:  ‘It was a pleasure to support both Paces Sheffield and Mama Bamboo to bring their investment opportunities to market on the Triodos website. The response from investors has already been positive and we look forward to continuing to monitor the individual offers and seeing the progress made in the corresponding growth plans.’

The valuation of rural mast sites under the Electronic Communications Code (“New Code”) has been under the spotlight again with a new decision from the Upper Tribunal in the case of ON Tower UK Limited v JH & FW Green Limited [2020].

The site in question was let on a contracted out 1954 Act lease with provisions which allowed the operator to share and upgrade the site, subject to “payaway” terms to the landlord.

The landlord accepted that the operator had the right to a New Code agreement but the issues in contention were:

• What equipment can the operator install;
• Should the operator’s right to upgrade equipment be limited;
• Should the operator’s right to share the site be limited; and
• What is the correct rent taking these 3 issues into account.

Equipment

The operator wanted freedom to add equipment to the site, whereas the landlord wanted to maintain the status quo, having taken a careful inventory of current equipment.

The landlord was willing to allow sharing and upgrading, but only on a strict interpretation of para 17 of the New Code, so that the changes had to have a minimal adverse impact on the visual setting and impose no additional burden on the landowner (burden meaning an additional adverse effect on enjoyment of the land or loss, damage or expense).

However, these New Code rights only form the statutory skeleton for the agreement between the parties. They are restricted rights and if any meat was to be added to these bones it had to be by way of negotiation or direction of the Upper Tribunal.

The operator’s position was that they were in the business of providing the infrastructure for broadband and mobile phone connections. Upgrading and sharing without limitation was essential, because technology and the market were moving quickly and unpredictably. This concern was exacerbated by the Court of Appeal’s decision in Compton Beauchamp[1] where it ruled that an operator cannot go back to the Tribunal for additional rights once an agreement is imposed.

The landlord had obvious concerns about the roll out of 5G, which requires larger and noisier equipment. Given the operator’s desire to go beyond the basic statutory right, the Tribunal had to consider the evidence from both parties.

The operator acknowledged that the 5G roll out would require a new mast, but argued that the South Downs National Park status of the site would act as a sufficient control.  The landlord stated its concerns about additional traffic, security risks, disturbance, visual appearance and radiation.

The Tribunal had to engage in a balancing exercise to determine the terms of the agreement. Under the New Code it may (not “must”) grant a New Code right, providing that the relevant conditions were met. These conditions are set out in paragraph 21 and are that the prejudice caused to the landlord must be able to be compensated by money and be outweighed by the public benefit that will ensue from the grant of the right. Further, New Code rights are not absolute and may be the subject of terms to ensure that the “least possible loss and damage is caused by the exercise of the code right.”

In exercising this discretion the Tribunal were not convinced that the site’s appearance would change drastically with the upgrade to 5G given its small size (70 sq ft), although acknowledged the other concerns of the landlord were relevant, albeit exaggerated. In any event, disturbance, noise and access issues were addressed in the proposed new lease, so any breach would entitle the landlord to damages or, where necessary, injunctive relief. The Tribunal did not, therefore, see a need to modify the rights to cause the least possible damage to the landowner arising from the grant of upgrading rights, which go beyond the basic terms of paragraph 17.

Site sharing

The Tribunal then had to consider the right to share the site.  This could not be done on the same basis, as sharing is not a New Code right; the Tribunal has discretion to grant a right to share on such terms as are appropriate to ensure that the least possible loss and damage is caused to the landlord. A balance has to be struck between enabling the operator to share the site in order to provide a high quality telecommunications service and the objections of the landlord.;

The operator in this case was an infrastructure provider (rather than a network operator) so its equipment (masts, cabinets and other equipment) were passive. The operator had to be able to share with any network operator or it could not continue its business.  The Tribunal decided the landlord’s objections were not well founded, so granted the operator an unrestricted right to share. The paragraph 17 conditions were not required, given the same safeguards of planning law and lease terms explained above.

Consideration & Compensation

The Tribunal confirmed the approach taken in the Islington[2] case, where any compensation for predictable loss and damage was included in the assessment of consideration, to avoid inevitable subsequent claims. This does not stop a landowner making later claims under paragraph 25, but a second bite only exists for those litigating and is not available if a deal is reached by agreement.

The Tribunal continued in assessing consideration by adopting a framework previously used in the Hanover[3] and London and Quadrant[4]cases:

1. Assess the alternative use value of the site, which would be the rental value of its current use or of the most valuable non-network use. This process would be heavily influenced by location and be a matter of evidence in each case;
2. Add a rental value to reflect any additional benefits conferred on the operator – in Hanover, the site was protected by a manned security gate; and
3. If the letting would have a greater adverse effect on the willing lessor, than the alternative use, on which the existing use value was based, then this should be reflected by a rental adjustment.

This case was the first one arising on a lease renewal, as opposed to a new agreement for a previously undeveloped site. The operator’s expert determined a rental value of £500 p.a. after carrying out the 3 stage process, with half the value attributed to stage 3, to reflect a rolling break clause after 5 years and a right to enter other landlord’s property.

Comparables

Comparable evidence of other rural sites on similar lease terms was also considered by the expert.  Of these 23 renewal agreements, 16 of them contained caveats which made clear that the operator in each case was agreeing a rent higher than that which would be determined by a Tribunal in accordance with paragraph 24 of the New Code.

As such, the expert considered the comparables to be unreliable in terms of arriving at a true paragraph 24 valuation. They were also considered to be too high because they were a blend of consideration and compensation, so the expert deducted the value of what he called an “incentive payment” made by the operators to oil the wheels of commerce.

These deductions were around £1,000 in each case and resulted in rental values of £500 for 16 sites and £1,000 for a further 4, with outliers at greater sums of £1500 and £3,000 for 4 further sites.

Landowner’s expert’s approach

The Landowner’s expert took two approaches to the valuation. The first was market value based on evidence of 15 transactions.  The Tribunal rejected 11 of these, as they were deals that were completed after the New Code came into effect, but implemented terms that reflected the old regime, to which the parties were contractually committed.

The Tribunal pointed out, that in both Hanover and London and Quadrant, evidence of this sort could not be taken as a reliable guide to no-network assumption valuations required by paragraph 24. The expert’s justification for persisting in presenting such evidence was that further research had shown that the rents were, despite the caveat, actually calculated on the basis of the New Code.

This argument was rejected by the Tribunal in terms that thinly disguised its exasperation at having to explain for a third time that such evidence is useless.

The remaining transactions were also not helpful, as they were either 1954 Act renewals to non-Code operators, urban sites or sites with significant alternative use value. The landowner’s expert figure was £5,500 based on these comparables, with an additional £1,500 pa to reflect the grant of access and use of a generator.

The second approach valued the alternative use of the site at £50, with an ultimate consideration of £7,800 pa. This was based on agreements granting access rights to third parties like Network Rail and Northumbrian Water, the granting of non-network benefits by the landowner and compensation to reflect health and safety concerns.

The Tribunal found the evidence presented by the landowner’s expert to be of very little help, with both his proposed valuations being higher than the passing rent. The Tribunal said that this told them that the expert had not accepted or understood the paragraph 24 valuation process.  Under lengthy cross examination the expert remained insistent that his evidence was relevant and the Tribunal fired a clear warning shot in saying that if this happened again, such evidence would be rejected without the need for further cross examination.

Operator’s expert’s approach

In contrast the operator’s expert evidence pointed to the fact that rents of £1500 or above were the norm, ignoring the effect of transitional incentive payments. These were commercial deals struck to avoid the cost of Tribunal proceedings and do not reflect the paragraph 24 reality.

However, the Tribunal considered that the operator was underestimating consideration values and overstating how much was paid as a commercial inducement – a doubling of the consideration was thought to be more realistic.

Tribunal’s approach

Taking the 3 stage approach set out above:

1. The experts agreed a nominal £100 pa alternative use value;
2. Additional benefits conferred on the operator included a right to keep a mast on the site, electric supply, right to enter other property of the landowner and tenant’s rolling break clause after 5 years. The operator said £400, the landowner said £1300 and the Tribunal ruled £600; and
3. Adverse effect on landowner was considered by the Tribunal to be caused by the access rights (to the “heart of a private rural estate”) and the loss of amenity caused by likely replacement of the mast for 5G upgrade purposes. This was valued by the Tribunal at £500, although it stated that if rents of nearby properties were negatively affected, this could form the basis of a subsequent compensation claim.

The cumulative consideration was therefore £1200 pa, which seems right when considered against a comparable put in evidence comprising a consensual deal at £2,500 for a similar wooded site on a rural estate. Compensation was awarded for legal and professional fees. The legal fees were allowed in full but a breakdown of the valuer’s fees was required as the landowner was not entitled to be reimbursed for any litigation related expense.

Our Natural Capital hub contains information and resources written by our team of experts as well as papers and online materials authored by a variety of sources including the UK Government, the UN, Conservation International and the World Forum on Natural Capital.

The International Integrated Reporting Council (IIRC) is a global coalition of regulators, investors, companies, standard setters, the accounting profession, academia and NGOs. The coalition promotes communication about value creation as the next step in the evolution of corporate reporting. and in particular promotes Integrated Reporting <IR>.

Their mission is to establish integrated reporting and thinking within mainstream business practice as the norm in the public and private sectors. Their vision is to align capital allocation and corporate behaviour to wider goals of financial stability and sustainable development through the cycle of integrated reporting and thinking. The resources tab includes useful FAQs, and the International <IR> Framework which establishes the Guiding Principles and Content Elements for integrated reporting.

To access this resource please click here: ‘Integrated Reporting Council‘.

If you have any questions about Natural Capital our Agriculture team would be pleased to hear from you: please click here for their full contact details.

To access our Natural Capital hub, please click here.

For Multi Academy Trusts (MATs), a variety of information must be published on its main website as well as each Academy’s website. Whilst some MATs are operating under multiple Funding Agreements, we recommend that you publish everything required under the latest DfE model Funding Agreement as well as the Academies Financial Handbook. This will need to include any charging information.

On the MAT website, an Academy must publish:

• its annual accounts no later than the end of January following the financial year to which the accounts relate
• its current Memorandum & Articles of Association and Master Funding Agreement
• the required information relating to governance structures, including for example the structure and remit of the members, board of trustees, its committees and local governing bodies, and the full names of the chair of each (where applicable)
• information about its Pupil Premium, including for example the amount of Pupil Premium allocation that it will receive during the Academy Financial Year
• if received, information about its Year 7 literacy and numeracy catch-up premium funding
• various details about its curriculum, including for example the content of the curriculum and its approach to the curriculum.

On the individual Academy’s website, you must publish:

If applicable, the Academy’s most recent Key Stage 2 results as published by the Secretary of State in the School Performance Tables:

• average progress scores in reading, writing and maths
• average ‘scaled scores’ in reading and maths
• percentage of pupils who achieving the expected standard or above in reading, writing and maths
• percentage of pupils who achieving a high level of attainment in reading, writing and maths

If applicable, the Academy’s most recent Key Stage 4 results as published by the Secretary of State under the following column headings in the School Performance Tables:

• progress 8 score
• attainment 8 score
• percentage of pupils who achieving a strong pass (grade 5 or above) in English and maths
• percentage achieving the English Baccalaureate
• percentage of pupils continuing in education of training, or moving on to employment at the end of 16 to 19 study
• information about where and how parents (including parents of prospective pupils) can access the most recent report about the Academy published by the Chief Inspector
• information as to where and how parents (including parents of prospective pupils) can access the School Performance Tables published by the Secretary of State.

Finally, and by way of best practice, we recommend that each Academy’s website includes the following information: contact details, admissions arrangements, Ofsted reports, behaviour policies, values and ethos. Whilst this is not a legal requirement for academies, the information is both important and helpful!

The European Court of Justice (“ECJ”) has given a preliminary ruling on the jurisdiction of member states in relation to copyright materials published without the owner’s consent.

The Austrian case of Pez Hejduk v EnergieAgentur.NRW GmbH, Case C-441/13 concerned the use of photographs by a conference organiser on a website and the subsequent option to download these photos by website users. The owner of the photographs did not consent to this and sued the conference organiser for copyright infringement. It was argued that the Austrian Court did not have jurisdiction to hear the case on the basis that the conference’s organiser’s website had a .de domain name and was directed at German, not Austrian users.

The ECJ’s view was that under Article 5(3) of EC (44/2001) Brussels Regulation, proceedings could be brought in any member state where the relevant website was accessible. As set out in Pinckney v KDG Mediatech AG Case C-170/12, this was sufficient to seise the court, an activity did not need to be “directed” to that member state, i.e. through a country-specific, top-level domain name. However, the ECJ did make it clear that the courts where a website was accessible  could only determine damages which had been incurred within their own member states.

This ECJ decision widens the potential jurisdiction further than in previous case law as unlike in Pinckney, there is no requirement for hard copies to have been received to act as proof of damage in a jurisdiction – anyone can log onto a website and download online materials onto their own devices. It is anticipated that we will see an influx of online copyright infringement claims, as a result.

For potential claimants, this decision is likely to be welcomed as it enables claimants to rely on the jurisdiction of their own member state in order to bring a claim. However, where there has been significant damage, it is likely that the claimant would still be well-advised to sue in the defendant’s member state, to enable it to claim all damages, rather than just those in the claimant’s member state.

For website owners, this decision acts as a reminder to ensure that all content displayed and available for download  has the appropriate consents and licences in place.  This decision will be particularly significant for online users with territory-specific rights, who will now have difficulty arguing that they did not directly target an excluded territory. It is now clear that mere “accessibility” of content in an excluded territory could enable a claim to be made.

For more information please contact Charlotte Bolton, Solicitor in the Commercial Disputes & Regulatory team on charlotte.bolton@michelmores.com or on 01392 687745.

Judgment in the long running case of CG Fry & Son Limited (Appellant) v (1) Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government and another (Respondents) was handed down by the Supreme Court this morning.

I have written previously about this case in the High Court decision Nutrient neutrality: Are developments with outline consent caught by the requirements? and the outing in the Court of Appeal CG Fry & Son Limited v (1) Secretary of State for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities (2) Somerset Council.

The issues for the Supreme Court

The issues to be determined by the Supreme Court were:

1. Does Regulation 63 of the Conservation of Habitats and Species Regulations 2017 (Habitats Regulations) require an “appropriate assessment” to be undertaken before a local planning authority decides to discharge conditions which require the approval of reserved matters in a grant of outline planning permission for that development?
2. What is the effect of a grant of outline planning permission, and what is the impact on that grant, of a policy adopted by the government, and a change of scientific advice affecting the application of that policy?

The good news for the developers is that, whilst the Supreme Court rejected the appeal in respect of issue 1, it allowed it on issue 2.

The granting of outline planning permission, subject to reserved matters being decided at a later date, is commonplace. The questions here were whether subsequent approval of those reserved matters is subject to the Habitats Regulations requirements and of the impact of policy change on an outline consent.

The Habitats Regulations issue

On the first issue, the Supreme Court agreed with the Court of Appeal that an appropriate assessment under the Habitats Regulations will be required, when the effect of approval of reserved matters, is to give authorisation for the project to proceed.

The effect on outline planning consents

On the second issue, the Supreme Court considered the nature of a grant of planning permission and concluded that the rights conferred cannot be diluted by government policy. Any conditions attached to a planning permission must be considered objectively and there is no general power for a planning authority to refuse consent on policy grounds (such as RAMSAR site protection), which are not fairly related to the subject matter of those conditions. The reasons for granting or refusing consent must be within the ambit of the reserved matters – revisiting the principles of the original outline grant is not permitted.

The site in this case was a RAMSAR site and not a European Site protected by the Habitat Regulations. The decision on issue 1 means that appropriate assessments under the Habitats Regulations will still need to be carried out in respect of European Sites but not RAMSAR sites.

Impact of the Planning and Infrastructure Bill

The Planning and Infrastructure Bill proposes an alternative route for developers to avoid the impact of the Habitats Regulations, by contributing to larger scale mitigation projects, so the effects of this case may well be limited by future legislation.

However, this litigation has been rumbling on for a few years now and some developers within RAMSAR sites may well have paid to purchase phosphate credits so as to unlock development. If such mitigation was required to secure reserved matters approval, then this judgment means that was a potentially unnecessary and significant expense.

Michelmores has acted for the shareholders of Ralston Enterprises Limited in the successful sale of the Solsoft Group to Ekco, a leading EU-based managed cloud and security services provider. Founded in 2011 by Mike and Louise Ralston, Michelmores has supported the Solsoft Group for nearly 15 years.

Solsoft Group is an established IT managed service provider based in Bristol. Known for its exceptional customer service and trusted managed service delivery, Solsoft Group has built a strong reputation within the industry.

The Michelmores Corporate team advising on the transaction comprised Partner Richard Cobb, Managing Associate Angharad Doyle, and Associate Emma Cheshire. They worked alongside Venture Corporate Finance, who acted as corporate finance advisors to the shareholders. Gateley provided legal advice to Ekco.

This deal marks a significant milestone for the Solsoft Group and its shareholders, enabling new growth opportunities under Ekco’s expanding European footprint.

Richard Cobb, Partner and Head of Corporate at Michelmores, commented:

“We are delighted to have supported the shareholders of Ralston Enterprises Limited on this important transaction. The sale of Solsoft Group to Ekco represents an exciting next chapter for the business, combining SSG’s strong service ethos with Ekco’s extensive European cloud and security expertise. It has been a pleasure working closely with the shareholders and our partners throughout the process.”

Mike Ralston, Co-founder of Solsoft Group, added:

“Since founding Solsoft in 2011, our focus has always been on delivering outstanding managed services to our clients. Partnering with Ekco opens up new horizons for the business and its people, and we’re excited about the opportunities this brings for continued growth and innovation.”

For more information on the Firm’s Corporate offering, please visit our website.

We’re pleased to announce that Michelmores is partnering with the Country Land and Business Association (CLA) South West for its upcoming Succession Roadshow, and will be presenting at two venues across the region on the 21 October.

The events, designed to support rural businesses and landowners in planning for the future, will be held at:

• Hartham Park, Wiltshire. Find out more.
• The White Barn, Somerset. Find out more.

Michelmores will be speaking during the ‘solicitor’ slot at both events, with Partners Iwan Williams and Anna Parker representing the Firm. The Roadshow will also feature insights from PKF Francis-Clark, who are taking the ‘accountant’ role during the sessions.

These informative events will explore key aspects of succession planning for landowners, including legal and financial considerations, and offer practical guidance from professionals with deep expertise in rural business matters.

The events are free to attend, and non-members are welcome to register via the CLA website using the links above.

We look forward to seeing you there and contributing to an important conversation around succession and the future of rural businesses.

Michelmores is pleased to announce the appointment of Jo Mackie as a Partner in the Employment team, further strengthening the Firm’s national employment law offering.

Jo brings with her over two decades of experience advising major UK and international businesses across sectors including media, pharmaceuticals, property management, marketing, and hospitality. Known for her pragmatic, strategic advice, Jo supports clients on the full range of employment law matters – from day-to-day advisory to high-stakes litigation and complex TUPE transfers.

Jo has particular expertise in contentious matters, having successfully defended clients in the Employment Tribunal, the Employment Appeal Tribunal (EAT), and the High Court. She regularly advises on restrictive covenants, performance management, redundancy, and all employment aspects of mergers and acquisitions.

She also acts as a trusted media commentator, regularly featuring as an in-house legal expert for Raconteur (part of The Times and The Sunday Times), and contributing to People Management, the UK’s leading HR publication. Jo has also provided employment law commentary on national platforms such as Sky News, LBC, and Talk Radio.

James Baker, Partner and Head of the Firm’s Employment practice, commented:

“Jo’s appointment is a fantastic addition to our team. Her experience advising high-profile and international clients, particularly in fast-moving and complex sectors, aligns perfectly with our strategic focus. Her media presence also reflects her ability to communicate complex legal issues in a clear, commercial way – something clients and colleagues greatly value.”

Jo Mackie said:

“I’m thrilled to be joining Michelmores – a firm with an excellent reputation for providing commercially focused legal advice. I’m looking forward to working with the team to help our clients navigate the evolving employment landscape with confidence.”

For more information about Michelmores’ Employment offering, visit the Firm’s website: Employment.

I am now in the third seat of my training contract and time really has flown by.

I am currently sitting in the Property Litigation department, and this is my first taste of contentious law. Although two years sounds like a long time, it’s really hard to squeeze in as much varied training as possible, but it is so important for your learning and development as a Trainee Solicitor.

One of the key advantages of a training contract is the opportunity to experience different areas of law before qualification. For me, being a massive property law enthusiast, that has meant building a strong foundation in property law, but from very different angles. Having completed seats in both the Planning and Transactional Real Estate departments, and now in Property Litigation, I’ve had the chance to experience the full lifecycle of property matters, from acquisition and development through to dispute resolution.

Each seat has brought its own challenges, but also its own perspective. In the Planning team, the focus was on resolving technically complex issues to unlock the potential of sites and navigate regulatory hurdles. In the Transactional Real Estate team, the spotlight was on progressing deals efficiently and managing commercial and statutory deadlines. Both felt like building something (quite literally in the case of development work).

Property Litigation, by contrast, has been about resolving what happens when things don’t go to plan. It’s been fast-paced, detail-driven, and often strategic. You’re frequently dealing with time-sensitive issues and working closely with clients to develop a position that protects their interests while keeping commercial outcomes in mind. It has also accentuated the importance of early settlement. Although we are a Property Litigation department, litigation is always the last resort, and it’s been eye-opening to see the work that litigators put in to avoid further dispute.

What I’ve found particularly valuable is how the knowledge and experience from my previous seats feeds directly into litigation work. Understanding how leases are structured gives vital context when advising on the fallout. You see the practical impact of the clauses you once drafted and the long-term consequences of negotiation points that may have seemed minor at the time.

For anyone interested in a specific area of law, I would highly recommend experiencing both the contentious and non-contentious sides. Together, they provide a far more complete picture and a stronger foundation as you move toward qualification. I’ve found that this rounded experience has not only made me a more confident trainee but also helped me understand the kind of lawyer I want to become.

Michelmores has advised Verdant Capital Hybrid Fund on its $3million investment in Bfree, a leading digital and ethical credit collection company operating across Africa.

The investment will support Bfree’s distressed loan portfolio financing model, enabling the company to purchase and recover distressed loans from inclusive financial institutions. Bfree’s technology-led approach helps improve repayment rates, restore borrowers’ credit scores, and return much-needed capital and liquidity to the financial sector.

The transaction is aligned with Verdant’s focus on financial inclusion and impact investing in emerging markets. In addition to financing, Bfree will benefit from capacity-building support via the Verdant’s technical assistance facility.

The Michelmores team advising on the deal was led by Partner in the Firm’s Banking, Restructuring & Insolvency team, Karen Williams, alongside Managing Associate Danielle Collett-Bruce and Trainee Solicitor Meg Heaney.

Karen Williams commented:

“We’re proud to have supported Verdant Capital on this investment, which aligns commercial innovation with genuine social impact. Bfree’s model is helping to transform distressed debt management in Africa by enabling inclusive financial institutions to recycle capital, while giving borrowers a pathway back to financial health. It’s a compelling example of how investment can drive both financial return and systemic change.”

Established in 2020, Bfree has supported over 6.6 million borrowers. Its ethical, data-driven model is reshaping the approach to non-performing loans across the SME and retail lending space in Africa. This investment marks another key step in Verdant Capital’s mission to build impactful, scalable financial solutions in frontier markets.

Michelmores’ Banking & Finance team’s strengths lie in understanding our clients’ greater commercial objectives and supporting them to achieve their goals, while keeping them ahead of the fast-moving regulatory landscape. Read more on our website.

Starting a training contract can feel like a significant leap from your previous experiences, with a new environment, new systems to learn and new teams to get to know. It can feel overwhelming at first but also very exciting! You have worked very hard to get to this point and so you want to make your mark as you take this next step in your legal career. To make a meaningful impact, you need to consider how you can establish yourself both internally and externally and I have outlined below what I have learnt during the course of my training contract.

Joining a local committee or professional group

You should do some research on what committees and/or groups are present in your area. Many are run by junior professionals that host networking events, fun activities and socials.

During my training contract, I have acted as the Bristol Junior Lawyers Division Committee’s (BJLD) Health & Wellbeing Officer. This role has presented me with the opportunity to not only attend these events but also the benefit of hosting them within the local community. For example, I recently organised our annual Summer Boat Party which enabled me to vastly expand my professional network across multiple law firms and professional sectors through organising and marketing the event. As I was relatively new to Bristol at the time, it also helped me to build a social group of new friends and gave me opportunities to explore the city.

Internal and external events

There are many networking opportunities that are present within your place of work. A good first step is to ask colleagues what events they are involved in and how you can take part. For example, in my Corporate seat, I became regularly involved in the monthly run club and Bristol NextGen networking events that Michelmores co-host with Deloitte. These were informal, fun and relaxed ways to meet professionals from different companies and sectors within the local area. It is important to cultivate the connections you make and build a network both internally and externally as those same people may end up acting on the same transaction as you, help create an introduction to a new client or help facilitate further connections to grow your network, enabling you to build a rapport that can benefit you for the rest of your career.

Extra-curricular activities

You can also expand your network outside of a professional setting. If you have a particular interest or hobby, you should see whether there are any local clubs or groups that you can join to meet new people. I play for Bristol Volleyball club, and I meet many working professionals in areas such as law, finance and architecture and we keep each other informed of various news and developments within our industries and invite each other to events that we host.

If you hold a committee position or host an event that aligns with such interest or hobby, you can also tap into that pool of contacts that you’ve built. For example, in my BJLD role, I organised a volleyball event in collaboration with Bristol Young Professionals, which enabled me to use the network I had established from my involvement in the Bristol Volleyball Club to expand the reach of our event, leading to a highly attended and successful event.

Be proactive

If there is a subject or activity that you are passionate about, don’t be afraid to be proactive and put on an event or start a new group within your firm. When I first joined Michelmores, I noticed that we didn’t have a Music club and so I decided to make one and the Michelmores Music Club has grown ever since. This has been a great way to network with people who are passionate about the topic of music and has even resulted in us going to gigs together and sharing song recommendations.

This proactivity presented an opportunity whereby a Partner of the firm recruited me to play in the Michelmores Band at our annual firm ball. This was an excellent opportunity for me to connect with colleagues over a shared passion and exponentially expand my internal network, particularly as I had only recently joined the firm at the time.

Article writing

Throughout a training contract, trainees are encouraged to get involved in writing articles and contribute towards the trainee blog. You can use various resources such as Practical Law and Lexis Nexis to keep informed of any developments within your practice area. Again, you can be proactive and write articles on these topics whilst also showing your personality. This helps develop your own technical knowledge of the practice area whilst also enabling you to create publicly available material for the firm’s website. This creates opportunities in which you can build a personal brand externally and reach an audience that you might not otherwise reach, potentially leading to opportunities to build your network even further.

Be yourself

It is important to identify your skills, strengths and values and know how to effectively convey them. Throughout my career, I have honed a personal brand of being enthusiastic, positive and reflective of my legal journey. Due to the reach of my content on platforms such as LinkedIn, I regularly receive messages and emails from aspiring solicitors seeking mentorship and advice on how they can navigate their own legal journey.

I have built a consistent brand from continuously sharing my experiences, milestones and highlights, including showing gratitude to all those that I networked with along the way, opening many opportunities. For example, I posted a reflective retrospective of my milestones this year on LinkedIn, including a summary of the events I attended during this time. One of these events was the Law Society Bicentenary Celebration event and the Law Society saw my post, congratulated me on my milestones and wished me all the best in my legal career. Later that day, the Law Society messaged me asking to collaborate on a media piece about my graduate solicitor apprenticeship journey.

Conclusion

There are many opportunities that you can utilise to put yourself out there throughout your training contract, both internally and externally. This period in your career is an excellent opportunity to learn from those around you and grow your professional network as much as you can. I have significantly benefitted from the networking and personal brand building that I have done so far during my training contract and would encourage others in a similar position to put themselves out there as it will greatly benefit you in both the short term and long term.

If you would like to build your own network, please feel free to connect with me on LinkedIn here and reach out if you have any questions on the contents of this blog or any networking opportunities at Michelmores.