Local authorities face significant risks from the devolution of powers from central government to local levels. As services are remodeled and greater collaboration pursued, authorities must ensure strong leadership, governance, and risk management to balance opportunities and challenges. In particular, the increasingly complex relationships between organizations and changing risk profiles require innovation to adequately manage risks arising from devolved responsibilities. Proper consideration of these issues is needed to successfully transition to new models of service delivery.

1. devolution from central to local
government - managing the risk

2. key figures at the roundtable
Rob Whiteman, Chief Executive,
CIPFA (Chair)
John Baker, Senior Claims Manager,
PwC
Angela Beechey, Risk & Insurance Manager,
Shropshire Council
Tim Devine, Managing Director Public Sector and Education Practices,
A J Gallagher
Philip Farrar, National Development Director,
Risk Management Partners
James Fawcett, Partner,
Browne Jacobson
David Forster, Head of Risk,
Zurich Municipal
Emily Giles, Policy Adviser – Public Services,
CBI
Mark Nicholson, Insurance and Risk Manager,
London Borough of Lambeth
Neil Pearson, Risk Insurance & Loss Control Manager,
Walsall Council
Robin Powell, Risk and Insurance Manager,
ACRE Risk Consulting Limited
Sharon Roots, Finance Director,
ALARM
Bill Sulman, Director for Public Sector,
Aon Risk Solutions
Bridget Tatham, Partner,
Browne Jacobson

3. Devolution from central to local government - Managing the risk | Contents page | 3
contents
About the roundtable
Foreword
Introduction
Executive summary
Remodelling public services
Collaboration and engagement
Fiscal devolution - reality, uncertainty and risk
Insurance risk management
Recommendations
About Browne Jacobson
4
6
8
10
12
14
16
18
20
23

4. Devolution from central to local government - Managing the risk | About the roundtable page | 4
So are local authorities prepared for greater devolved
powers? How will local authorities balance the
challenges and risks associated with fiscal devolution
against a backdrop of long term austerity? What are the
specific challenges from a risk perspective and do senior
management and elected members currently take risk
management as seriously as they should do? Are current
insurance risk arrangements fit for purpose?
Our latest report on the devolution debate, ‘Devolution
from central to local government – managing the
risk’, reflects the thoughts and views that emerged
at our roundtable and puts forward a series of key
recommendations for further consideration by
stakeholders on managing the risks associated with this
issue.
The content of this report does not reflect the views
of any one individual who attended or the organisation
they represent. The information and opinions expressed
in this report are no substitute for full legal advice, it is
for guidance only.
about the roundtable
The devolution juggernaut is gathering pace. The present government is single minded in its
commitment to deliver on its programme of devolving ever greater powers from Westminster to local
councils, community groups and individuals. A commitment that has already seen more than seven
‘devolution deals’ signed since the May 2015 election.
Chaired by Rob Whiteman, Chief Executive of CIPFA,
our roundtable discussed these issues and more with
key public and private sector stakeholders including:
representatives from ACRE Risk Consulting, A J
Gallagher, ALARM, AON Risk Solutions, CBI, London
Borough of Lambeth, PwC, Risk Management Partners,
Shropshire Council, Walsall Council and Zurich
Municipal.

5. Devolution from central to local government - Managing the risk | About the roundtable page | 5

6. Devolution from central to local government - Managing the risk | Foreword page | 6
On this occasion of particular value has been the participation of private sector stakeholders. The CBI, for example,
were able to provide a perspective on the particular challenges of the private sector which on the one hand is being
encouraged to play its role in devolution and growth, but on the other is discouraged by the efforts of government
to transfer risk to them. In fact, this is the first such discussion I have heard which has considered the question of
opportunity risk in the context of devolved powers.
Clearly there are some new risks developing through devolution which can be assuaged by clearer regulations from
government. For example, the Combined Authority for Manchester has an exciting £300m pot for housing under its
devolution deal but does not have non-transport borrowing powers. The solution of back to back agreements with
the 10 unitary authorities that will do the borrowing is a creative one, but where will risk really lie? The audit and
risk committees of the 10 authorities will see money borrowed by their councils but delivered and accountable
to the audit and risk committees of the combined authorities. Similarly, how best will auditor judgements be
formulated?
These are not unsolvable problems but it demonstrates that the potential revolution taking place in English regions
and local government throws up new and emerging issues. Of course the market will work out a solution in this
case. If insurers can soon work out where accountability rests when driverless cars collide, it can formulate where
it sits when one set of parties is doing the borrowing and another party is doing the spending. But this might be at a
premium and the better solution would be for combined authorities to have local authority borrowing powers.
Government must not just ensure the headlines on devolution are attractive, but the detail behind the scenes is as
well.
foreword
When Browne Jacobson invited me to chair this roundtable, I saw it as a perfect opportunity to
engage with key players on the devolution stage and improve the chances of successful integration
of services in a devolved environment. There are important governance, planning and resourcing
issues to tackle in these arenas, and even if the parties are working positively together, these are
not simple matters - so it is helpful to learn lessons from participants’ ongoing experiences.
I warmly welcome this new report by Browne Jacobson and hope it will
ignite the risk management debate in the context of greater devolved
powers amongst all interested stakeholders.
Rob Whiteman
Chief Exectuive Officer, CIPFA

7. Devolution from central to local government - Managing the risk | Foreword page | 7

8. Devolution from central to local government - Managing the risk | Introduction page | 8
introduction
Devolution, underpinned by increasing fiscal autonomy, is the cornerstone of the changing landscape. The ‘Northern
Powerhouse’ is said to be the exemplar, with the move towards a directly elected mayor taking fiscal responsibility
and accountability. In 2015 we also saw Cornwall Council became the first rural authority in the country to sign
a formal devolution deal with Westminster. Under the terms of the deal, Cornwall Council will be working with
local partners to develop an integrated health and social care system as well as delivering sustained economic
growth through enhanced support for businesses, improved access to employment and training opportunities,
improvements to infrastructure and efficient use of public buildings.
This revolution in the devolution of political or fiscal responsibility brings with it huge responsibilities, challenges
and risks. This will involve developing an appetite for risk that for many is unprecedented. Stakeholders will
need to be innovative in managing local finances, shaping collaborative agreements, designing alternative service
delivery models and managing governance to make devolution work.
We asked our panel to consider what role does risk management have to play and how those now responsible
for the management of risk can ensure that their skills are used in the new world, by asking the following
questions:
‘The Path to Greater Regional Devolution’ and ‘Our changing state: the realities of austerity and
devolution’ published by Browne Jacobson, considered the changing landscape in which local
government now operates. The challenge to devise and embrace new ways of delivering public
services are being shaped by political ambition, against the background of continued cuts to central
government funding as George Osborne continues on his drive to ‘balance the books by 2020’.
1. Are we seeing forward thinking implementation of systems and procedures to facilitate greater powers
and responsibilities resting with local authorities?
2. Are there adequate working relationships in place with third party service providers that would allow
a smooth transition during any period of greater fiscal autonomy, whilst maintaining a service to the
community that is ‘fit for purpose’?
3. Alternatively, is there a need for an overhaul of third party providers and the contractual
arrangements in place to minimise financial/reputational risk to local authorities?
4. Are current insurance arrangements adequate, or is innovation needed to meet risks arising from
devolution?
5. Will innovation be required to ensure risk is managed effectively in the age of increased partnership
working, devolved powers and continued budgetary constraints?
6. Should those responsible for risk management within local authorities properly be at the forefront of
informing strategies in line with devolution?

9. Devolution from central to local government - Managing the risk | Introduction page | 9
In publishing this report, we hope it will stimulate further serious debate about the risks and challenges associated
with devolution powers amongst all key stakeholders – both public and private – to ensure we have processes,
systems and ultimately public services that are fit for purpose in the 21st century.
Bridget Tatham
Partner, Browne Jacobson LLP
This revolution in the devolution of political or fiscal responsibility brings with
it huge responsibilities, challenges and risks. This will involve developing an
appetite for risk that for many is unprecedented.
“
”

10. page | 10Devolution from central to local government - Managing the risk | Executive summary
We are perhaps on the cusp of the most significant
change that we will see in our lifetime, in terms of the
relationship between central and local government.
We have already seen greater collaboration with
the creation of combined authorities, the continued
transition to directly elected mayors for those
combined authorities, and significantly greater control
of and influence over health and social care by local
authorities, such as the decision to allow the Greater
Manchester Combined Authority to control £6 billion of
health and social welfare budget.
The pace of change was considered by the panel to
be ‘extraordinary’, with a feeling of rapid evolution
within authorities, both in terms of their composition
and processes. So it is no surprise that a recent survey
by Grant Thornton found that 72% of CFOs confirmed
that council members and officers had submitted bids
or had been in encouraging discussions about forming a
combined authority.
With change comes risk. There was a telling comment
in the discussion that “there is no room for error, but
there will be errors”. The evolution in local government
is new territory for all involved and with no blue print
to reference, there is enthusiasm and apprehension in
equal measure - there is genuine anticipation within
authorities at the opportunities which devolution brings
with it, balanced by unease from pressure to ‘get it
right first time’.
Opportunity and risk are two sides of the same coin -
there is now an even greater need for sharing of good
practice and experience to maximise innovation, growth
and ultimately success.
We are likely to see a transformation of local authorities
as we know them during the course of the next five
years. Although the move towards devolution is
increasingly seen as being personality driven (with the
political pitfalls that obviously entails), the overriding
view of delegates was that devolution to local
government is seen as inevitable, with some authorities
far further forward in the process than others. There
is a risk that some will be left behind, with other
established combined authorities taking control of their
own affairs and finding strength in numbers – those
authorities with less financial resilience are considered
at risk of becoming ‘extinct’ as we potentially move
towards a new world of survival of the fittest (or
possibly the largest) authorities.
“The landmark agreement between
NHS England, the local NHS and local
government leaders charts a path to the
greatest integration and devolution of
care funding since the creation of the NHS
in 1948.”
Simon Stevens
Chief Executive of NHS England
executive summary
Based on our research, experience and discussions at the meeting, Browne Jacobson’s conclusions
are as follows...

11. Devolution from central to local government - Managing the risk | Executive summary page | 11
Non public sector organisations delivering public sector services will increasingly be part of the solution to smaller
local budgets but increased demand on services. There is a need to ensure that commissioning organisations
have the skills and training to interface effectively with their commercial counterparts to ensure successful
transformation of public services.
James Fawcett
Partner, Browne Jacobson LLP
We are perhaps on the cusp of the most significant
change that any of us will see in our lifetime, in
terms of the relationship between central and local
government.
“
”

12. Devolution from central to local government - Managing the risk | Remodelling public services page | 12
remodelling public sevices
There are five established combined authorities, of which all bar one have agreed to establish a
directly elected mayor as part of their devolution deals. Greater Manchester is the model of central
government’s willingness to devolve greater powers and fiscal autonomy where there is an elected
mayor to be held accountable.
This is a step change from shared services, partnership or outsourcing whether public to public, public to private
or public to third sector, which has featured as alternative service delivery models in the sector for some time as a
response to deep cuts to budgets.
The strategic and operational structures are likely to be more complex, which may expose the authority to risks
flowing from complex lines of responsibility, accountability and governance over a number of mixed structures:
local authorities, NHS, private and public. Regardless of whether services are run by combined authorities,
community groups or delivered as part of an outsourcing contract, ultimately the statutory responsibility will fall on
the local authority. The Cities and Local Government Devolution Act 2016 provides some protection, requiring each
combined authority to set up at least one overview and scrutiny committee. These committees will have the power
to suspend decisions of the combined authority if needed. But the panel asked if this was enough protection when
considering:
• possible geographically diverse member organisations with different (potentially conflicting) agendas
• the political make up of each organisation
• combinations of constituent members with voting rights and non-constituent members with no voting
rights
• local v regional tensions
• political differences between member authorities - who is to lead / can they lead and on what areas?
• infrastructure (both IT, processes and people) - how are they, if at all, to be integrated?
The view from the panel is that strong leadership and governance was critical in order to avoid the potential
for chaos. But the real challenge is how to manage the increasingly diverse risk profile. Risk from day to day
operational management, the competing portfolios of each member authority and contracting public to private
businesses. The private sector sees the opportunities ahead, particularly SMEs sector. According to a recent national
YouGov survey, 51% of businesses polled said that local government having powers over major infrastructure
projects such as transport and housing would be an advantage to their businesses. However 79% did not feel they
have had an opportunity to contribute to the devolution agenda. For business, serious questions remain as to
whether some within authorities are equipped to move from procuring paper clips to saving lives!
“The government’s strategy is clear in that those areas that don’t want a mayor will keep the
powers they have. Those areas who accept a mayor will get more powers and ultimately when
there are enough mayors, they will force the others with the reserved powers they have.”
roundtable delegate

13. Devolution from central to local government - Managing the risk | Remodelling public services page | 13
Cornwall: turning over a new chapter
Cornwall Council has provided its face to face (library / one stop Shop) service through a variety
of locations and approaches including combined library / one stop shops, stand-alone libraries,
standalone one stop shops, a mobile library / information van and micro-libraries.
In November 2015 the council proposed devolving its libraries and one stop shops to local councils and community
groups. Following a comprehensive consultation, it received expressions of interest from parish councils and
community groups in delivering a local library service in 27 locations. Whilst it is not clear how many of the
expressions of interest will actually materialise into formal devolved agreements, the council has had to consider
a number of significant challenges and risks when weighing up the various options as it balances its new devolved
powers with its statutory duty to provide a local library service which is both “comprehensive and efficient…for all
persons desiring to make use thereof”.
These include:
• effectively monitoring and managing service delivery under multiple local arrangements, as well as running the
remainder of any service which has failed to generate any interest locally
• failing to deliver the necessary budget shortfall should all the initial expressions of interest not materialise into
‘devolution deals’ or the anticipated staff and property savings fail to be realised
• its ability to discuss, negotiate and agree 27 potentially separate deals within its existing resources
• the consequences of individual devolution agreements faltering and the potential risk of a legal challenge
against the provision of a statutory duty
• future political changes in town and parish councils and local community groups that may threaten the viability
of the service
• ensuring town and parish councils have the necessary statutory powers and capacity to run services under the
Localism Act 2011.
It is expected the council’s library devolution / one stop shop programme will be fully operational by 1 April 2017
with new community led models of service provision delivering circa £1.8m savings per annum.

14. Devolution from central to local government - Managing the risk | Collaboration and engagement page | 14
The continued drive towards devolution, together with prolonged austerity, is compelling a momentous shift in the
composition of local government. There is a clear steer from central government towards greater collaboration
across authorities and external organisations, aligned with a number of current initiatives. Examples include multi-
agency working in the safeguarding of children and the blurring of boundaries in the revised Highways Code of
Practice. The draft COP clearly states: “All authorities…..are encouraged to collaborate in determining levels of
service, especially across boundaries with other strategic and local highway networks”. In this time of opportunity
– but risk – can authorities find strength and resilience in numbers?
Collaboration is a pooling of common interests, assets and skills for the benefit of those using the various services
- the relationship is not solely based on contractual obligations which defines partnership working. Collaborative
working felt more joined up and seamless than partnership working.
In theory, cross-organisation working brings with it real benefits, with the prospect of the sharing of ideas, good
practice and skill sets – something that is of increasing importance in light of widespread redundancy consultations
throughout local government. Against the challenging environment authorities find themselves in, might an answer
be identifying and pooling resources across member organisations and also potential partners?
We have already seen motivation for partnership working arising out of the comprehensive spending review. But it
was the view of the panel that in order that combined authorities can realise their opportunities, a collaborative
approach at all levels and across all organisations is necessary. This would go some way to ensure the sustainable
delivery of public services - thereby minimising financial and reputational risk to authorities.
collaboration and engagement
“Most local authorities are going through voluntary redundancy
and actually losing people with those skill sets.”
roundtable delegate

15. page | 15Devolution from central to local government - Managing the risk | Collaboration and engagement
For there to be effective collaboration, sensible lines of communication need to be opened up between authorities
and also external organisations. For some this may require a shift in mind set, but what was encouraging was an
appetite for greater engagement across the panel and an appreciation that there needs to be commitment from all
to work together towards a common goal – “an understanding that there needs to be a deep partnership between
these [third party] providers and the local authorities”.
The emphasis on broader stakeholder collaboration and engagement also needs to extend to greater community
engagement. There is the potential of an ever widening gulf emerging between the new combined authorities and
constituents. In a recent Ipsos MORI and PwC survey (2015), three quarters (76%) of people surveyed knew little or
nothing about the government’s devolution plans. Awareness levels were only slightly higher in those areas working
to agree potential deals with Whitehall and according to the same survey, only 21% of those interviewed admitted
to knowing a “great deal” or a “fair” amount. Authorities will want to ensure that perceived lack of awareness is
addressed and constituents have full and proper involvement in the process.
an appetite for greater engagement
Authorities will want to ensure that
perceived lack of awareness is addressed

16. Devolution from central to local government - Managing the risk | Fiscal devolution - reality, uncertainty and risk page | 16
The panel considered that real fiscal devolution is required to unlock its true potential.
The panel considered the real possibility of central government, which currently retains half the taxes raised by
business rates, deciding that this should be retained wholly by local government as a means by which to facilitate
fiscal devolution. Further, if authorities are to take responsibility for areas such as health, the panel suggested that
general taxes raised may be retained locally.
It was suggested that this posed a number of risks. Authorities with a demographic of high need are likely to have
relatively low tax strength - whereas historically they may have looked to central government for funding, this may
now no longer be available. Rural areas are also likely to have low tax strength, due largely to the nature of the
rural economy and the focus placed by central governments on delivering strong city growth. Will such areas fall
behind combined authorities who have fiscal strength and sustainability?
Solutions discussed, such as equalisation of business rates across regions, underpins the devolution model of
combined authorities. The panel suggested that those authorities with less financial resilience may become
‘extinct’ as a top down operational model unfolds and eventually become attached to urban areas. Government has
a responsibility to ensure the devolutionary changes impact positively on all areas – rural and urban.
Rates and taxes - an equal playing field
fiscal devolution...
... reality, uncertainty and risk

17. Devolution from central to local government - Managing the risk | Fiscal devolution - reality, uncertainty and risk page | 17
“If you had previously said to me that the
Chancellor of the Exchequer would devolve £6bn
of NHS funds to a regional authority, I would
have thought that was inconceivable, absolutely
inconceivable.”
roundtable delegate
A regional NHS
The Kings Fund reports that 9 in 10 trusts have forecast deficits and calls for central government to release sooner
rather than later the £8bn extra spending promised by 2020. Local authorities have warned of a £4bn funding
gap. With further significant cuts and social care funds not ring-fenced, there is real potential for tension on the
‘pooled’ funds, resulting in a risk of reduced service provision impacting on those users who are at the heart of the
principle of prevention and not cure - the low paid but with high need.
We have already seen £6bn of NHS funding devolved to Manchester, where the proposal for the ground breaking
agreement is said to be based on a ‘pooling’ of budgets between social care and health. One of the panel members
highlighted the shift in thinking towards prevention rather than cure and that Manchester’s agreement embodies
that principle.
Speaking on BBC Radio 4’s ‘Today’ programme, Richard Humphries, Assistant Director of the King’s Fund think tank,
said a full transfer of responsibility would be a reform “on a breath-taking scale” and could pose serious risks:
With responsibility comes accountability and it was asked: who is in charge and where does the ‘buck stop’,
especially against a backdrop of:
• financial overspend in the NHS
• potential cultural differences over how deficits are perceived by health organisations and local authorities
• local health boards with responsibility and funding, but held accountable to national standards.
“Depending on the detail - and the detail is really crucial and we don’t have that yet - you could either see this
as a triumph for local democracy or creating real risks of yet another reorganisation of the NHS when it’s barely
recovered from the last one.”
But concerns were raised. Which organisation will control the budget or take responsibility for the commissioning
decisions that are made: NHS England and Clinical Commissioning Groups, local authorities or the Shadow Greater
Manchester Health and Wellbeing Board?

18. Devolution from central to local government - Managing the risk | Insurance risk management page | 18
insurance risk management
In this collaborative world and continued devolution of powers, there is greater scope for conflict
and uncertainty as to which insurable risks are covered by whom. With a sense of inevitability about
devolution, the changing landscape will require innovative insurance products if they are to remain
fit for purpose.
The starting point has to be clarity from the organisation
on how, as a combined authority, it will deliver services
at an operational level. It is the detail of whom,
when and how services will be delivered that may
present obstacles to effective and efficient insurance
arrangements. The market calls for early involvement
in the devolution deals that are being struck so that an
effective understanding of responsibilities and insurable
risk is determined in order to facilitate the innovation
and flexibility the public sector seeks.
Authorities will want a viable product before procuring
insurance and that product may not be currently
available. Again, the process will involve greater
engagement within combined authorities and their
partners – it is only following a detailed assessment of
risks to which authorities are exposed (with a full and
frank review of historic data) that the extent of risk and
scope of cover required can be properly identified.
This will require an insurer and/or combined authority
to demonstrate a real appetite for change in developing
a product to fit this new world of local authority.
It is a bold step, but one that could well transform
insurance arrangements and provide, it will be hoped,
much needed savings. Whilst recognising the significant
challenge the new models of local authority working
creates, it must be seen as an opportunity for innovation
and revolution of current insurance arrangements.
This will be a demanding process, with a real need for
‘buy-in’ by insurers, and only time will tell if there is
the appetite in the insurance market for overarching
insurance arrangements embracing combined
authorities. As an alternative, the default position for
central government has been to self-insure for losses.
We have also seen the introduction of a voluntary risk
pooling scheme which all academy schools are eligible
to join - might we see a move towards a similar scheme
for combined authorities?
only time will tell if there is the appetite
in the insurance market...
...for overarching insurance arrangements
embracing combined authorities

19. Devolution from central to local government - Managing the risk | Insurance risk management page | 19

20. Devolution from central to local government - Managing the risk | Recommendations page | 20
recommendations
Our discussions clearly indicate that if we are to successfully devolve powers to the regions then
the ability of central government, local government, the public sector and the wider community to
manage risks is critical. This report makes the following recommendations for all key stakeholders to
consider:
• there is a real need for greater engagement and support from central government. The momentous change
local authorities are going through (coupled with a perception of very significant risk) requires meaningful
interaction and guidance from central government; something which our panel did not consider they currently
have the benefit of
• it must be recognised that with the progression towards devolution, it is not a case of ‘one size fits all’. We
were fortunate to have representatives from a range of authorities at the discussion, from major cities through
to rural communities, and clear guidance from central government bespoke to the needs of the individual
authority is fundamental to the success of the process
• it is crucial that there is a step change involving those managing risk within authorities, to ensure they
have a voice in the devolution process. With greater collaborative working / scrutiny of risk, there is an
opportunity for risk managers to have a positive influence, sharing their knowledge and experience in ensuring
implementation of appropriate steps at an early stage. So, whilst there needs to be buy-in at all levels of the
authority in the process, those on the front line of risk management must have a seat at the top table and a
clear division of responsibility and accountability within authorities and third party service providers must flow
from deliberations. This should be accompanied by a thorough review of current governance arrangements and
structures both internally and across their key partners
• there is an urgency around ensuring that the right people are in the right positions with the right skills to
maximise the opportunities. Whilst one solution is to ‘buy in’ the right people, with shrinking budgets it would
be far more prudent for strategies to focus on developing knowledge and skills of existing staff, building
capacity through training for new staff and having robust structures in place for shared learning between
combined authorities and other stakeholders

21. Devolution from central to local government - Managing the risk | Recommendations page | 21
• the role of elected members should be reviewed with a greater emphasis on shaping risk management decisions
and in particular greater engagement of elected members in the area of financial risk management
• there is a need for a palpable shift towards a more commercial approach by local government to the delivery
of public sector services, where there is an increasing need for private sector to fill funding gaps. This is a shift
in behaviours, where ‘deep partnerships’ are demonstrated by a move away from risk transfer to joint risk
management to stimulate innovation and investment. We are currently working with the CBI to develop some
practical guides for sample contracts
• the insurance market is already sitting down with the public sector to better understand the changing
landscape. However, it is apparent that there needs to be even greater understanding of the likely risk
profile to facilitate a rethink on how insurance is procured, so that innovation is encouraged to safeguard a
competitive insurance market.
facilitate a rethink of how
insurance is procured
there is an increasing need for
private sector to fill funding gaps

22. Devolution from central to local government - Managing the risk | Recommendations page | 22
Rob Whiteman
Government must not just ensure the headlines on devolution
are attractive, but the detail behind the scenes is as well.
“
”

23. • abuse
• claims handling and delegated authority schemes
• corproate and commercial services
• counter fraud
• coverage disputes and policy interpretation
• cyber liability and data security
• directors and officers
• employers liability and public liability
• employment practice liability
• medical malpractice
• motor
• policy drafting and underwriter services
• product liability
• professional indemnity
• property and business interruption
• public authorities
• TMT and intellectual property.
We are a top UK 50 law firm offering a unique collection
of specialisms across the commercial, public, health and
insurance sectors. We have offices in Birmingham, Exeter,
London, Manchester and Nottingham and are committed to
being a quality, relationship-led business.
Established in 1832, we now have over 800 staff, including
more than 300 lawyers and over 100 partners. We have a
client portfolio to be proud of - including major insurers, blue
chip corporates, NHS trusts, local authorities and other public
sector organisations.
We have a long and successful track record of working with the
public sector. Our specialist public sector practice is ranked
nationally by both Chambers and Legal 500 directories, who
describe us as “solid and reliable”. We were “particularly
noted for the dedicated public sector offering”.
As a full service law firm, we can provide you with advice and
assistance on:
about browne jacobson...
Devolution from central to local government - Managing the risk | About Browne Jacobson page | 23
© Browne Jacobson LLP 2016 – The information contained in this report
is and shall remain the property of Browne Jacobson.
Bridget Tatham
Partner
bridget.tatham@brownejacobson.com
+44 (0)121 237 3916
James Fawcett
Partner
james.fawcett@brownejacobson.com
+44 (0)115 908 4874
David Maggs
Partner
david.maggs@brownejacobson.com
+44 (0)20 7337 1005
Jo Pruden
Partner
jo.pruden@brownejacobson.com
+44 (0)1392 458726

24. Birmingham | Exeter | London | Manchester | Nottingham
www.brownejacobson.com
0370 270 6000