2026 is not shaping up to be a quiet year. Disputes are getting more complex; regulation is tightening in ways that will bite and reputations are being tested in public – often at speed and across borders.
In this blog, Byfield’ leadership team share what issues they think will shape the legal landscape over the year ahead, and what they mean for organisations navigating high-stakes issues in a more scrutinised, less forgiving environment.
Gus Sellitto, Founder
International disputes, investigations and class actions become ‘multi-risk’ by default
When organisations are dealing with international disputes, investigations or crises today, an increasing number of factors are at play in managing the client’s overall risk profile. We’re seeing political risk, regulatory pressure, geopolitical tension and reputational exposure all moving together – in tandem rather than in silos. Increasingly, those forces pull in different directions at the same time, and the challenge for clients is navigating this complexity without losing control of either the legal strategy or the narrative. That’s why integrated teams matter: people who understand not just their own discipline, but how the different push-and-pull factors interact – and when to lean in, when to hold back, and how to coordinate activity across jurisdictions at pace.
We’re seeing that convergence in the evolution of collective actions across Europe. In the UK, the debate around opt-out is becoming increasingly political and public-facing, which means trust in the process – and public understanding of what collective redress is (and isn’t) – will be critical if the regime is to succeed over the long term. Across Europe, regimes in markets such as the Netherlands are maturing too, and clients increasingly need communications strategies that work across multiple legal systems, media environments and regulatory cultures – not a one-size-fits-all approach. International enforcement of awards is part of this picture too: enforcement strategy and communications often converge, because how a dispute is perceived by courts, regulators, counterparties and the public can materially affect the practicality and pace of enforcement across different jurisdictions.
From a disputes perspective, product liability and ESG-driven claims look set to continue building momentum. PFAS – so-called ‘forever chemicals’ – is a good example of how consumer awareness, regulatory attention and litigation risk can compound quickly. As highlighted in our recent research, awareness can often move faster than the case law, which means organisations should be thinking about preparedness well before claims land: from stakeholder mapping and regulatory engagement to credible messaging that can stand up to scrutiny.
London remains a global centre for international dispute resolution, but that position cannot be taken for granted. With increasing competition from other jurisdictions, how the UK chooses to develop (and explain) its approach to collective actions, funding and oversight will increasingly influence where complex, high-value disputes are brought and fought.
Social mobility and pro bono become more embedded in law firm culture and operations
One of the encouraging shifts we’re seeing is the growing seriousness with which the profession is engaging with social mobility – moving beyond statements towards practical pathways that genuinely change outcomes. The challenge now is to focus not only on access at the front door, but on progression: sponsorship, development, fair opportunity and cultures where talented people from all backgrounds can build long-term careers and reach leadership.
It’s also encouraging to see pro bono being woven more deeply into the fabric of leading law firms – their culture and business processes and not treated as a bolt-on. Pro bono plays a critical role in furthering access to justice and enabling lawyers at all stages of their careers to work on significant public interest and often landmark cases that can shape the law and drive wider positive societal change.
Ben Girdlestone, Joint Managing Director
Mergers move from “nice-to-have” to survival strategy
The temptation – after the dramatic hat trick of announced mergers at the end of 2025 – is to assume that a torrent of transatlantic mergers will be announced in 2026. I don’t necessarily think this will be the case. There are very few UK-headquartered firms of the ideal size and shape to merge with US firms, so it will take some significant market developments before many more mergers follow. What I do think is interesting is the draw of US firms to Milan and other major European cities. Are they looking for merger – or more realistically takeover – options with local firms? Could we see a US giant merge with a domestic player in continental Europe? My prediction is yes. Watch this space.
Private capital keeps pushing into legal, but via the side doors
There is so much talk about Private Capital (and Private Equity specifically) in the legal sector that it does feel a bit amorphous. There are many different models of private capital with markedly different approaches to their investments. What is true is that the traditional partnership model, where partners put money into the business, take out (and sometimes reinvest) profits is going to change as a result of external capital. We are all used to working with the ‘quirks’ of a traditional law firm partnership model, but the impact of external ownership will be transformational from a cultural perspective. With external capital demanding returns on investment and data and metrics dictating strategy and direction, transparency and clarity on delivery will be the order of the day. I think this will play really well for talented business services staff; if you make a significant difference to a firm through your efforts it will become more obvious and therefore justly recognised.
Michael Evans, Joint Managing Director
Resource nationalism has tipped into resource imperialism and companies are exposed
What we are seeing in 2026 goes well beyond regulation or sanctions. Resource nationalism has tipped into resource imperialism, with countries with the muscle to dictate outcomes willing to use direct coercion, military force and explicit threats, alongside sanctions and enforcement pressure, to control access to strategic resources.
Venezuela is the clearest example. Access to oil assets is shaped not just by policy but by force, naval pressure and external control over outcomes. Niger shows the same dynamic from a different angle: a military regime seizing control of uranium assets long dominated by a foreign power, openly defying established arrangements and forcing a geopolitical confrontation over who controls strategic supply.
For companies, the reputational risk is acute. Commercial decisions are read politically. Investing, operating or enforcing claims can be framed as complicity, exploitation or alignment with one side of a power struggle, regardless of intent. Silence looks evasive; asserting rights can look imperial.
This is where strategic, and proactive, PR becomes essential. Companies need to explain intent and boundaries early and plainly. In an environment where force and coercion shape access to resources, reputation is less about reassurance and more about being understood before others define the story.
“What does Google know about me?” becomes “what does AI know about me — and can it forget?”
Public concern about data is not new, but it is changing shape. In 2026, the familiar question “what does Google know about me?” is giving way to a more unsettling one: what does AI know about me, how did it learn it, and can it ever be made to forget?
People already understand how reputation management works online. They know how to delete a webpage, attempt to change a Wikipedia entry (even if they shouldn’t), manage search results through SEO, or litigate when necessary. High-net-worth individuals and corporates with reputational issues will not accept “the model can’t really forget” as a satisfactory answer when damaging narratives continue to surface through AI systems, especially if those narratives are false or skewed.
Large language models do not just retrieve information; they restate it with authority. When an AI repeats an allegation or controversy, it feels settled in a way a search result never did. That creates a growing tension around whether AI systems are genuinely immutable, or whether those with resources and influence will find ways to shape what models retain, suppress or prioritise.
The reputational risk here is also loss of trust in AI itself. If AI comes to be seen as something that can be quietly corrected for the powerful but not for others, disputes about reputation will move upstream – away from media and platforms, and toward the AI systems people increasingly rely on to understand the world.
Cultural flashpoints will keep turning decisions into reputational crises
Despite AI, most reputational crises in 2026 will still be caused by people, not technology. They will start with a badly judged decision, a poorly explained reversal, or leadership underestimating how an issue will land in public.
The collapse of Adelaide Writers’ Week illustrates in 2026 how quickly this kind of failure escalates. A scheduled speaker was removed on cultural sensitivity grounds following a national tragedy, despite no direct connection. That justification immediately raised questions the organisation was not prepared to answer. Was this about safety, politics, reputational risk or pressure from elsewhere? No clear rationale was set out.
From there, authority fractured. Explanations shifted between the board, management and political figures. Writers withdrew not just because of the decision, but because it appeared unprincipled and poorly owned. What began as a programming issue became a mass boycott, the cancellation of the event, senior resignations and the prospect of legal fallout.
The lesson is not to avoid controversy. It is that indecision and muddled messaging are reputational accelerants. Once a decision is taken, especially under pressure, it must be explained clearly, consistently and by someone visibly in charge. Trying to blur or soften the rationale simply creates space for others to weaponise it.
Beth Durkin, Director
Firms must navigate evolving regulatory environments and the client challenge of increasing transparency in litigation
The legal sector was surprised in 2025 by the announcement of the Government’s plan to consolidate anti-money laundering and counter-terrorist financing supervision for professional services under the Financial Conduct Authority (FCA). This will be a significant shift in the regulatory landscape and environment. While it will be some time before the change comes into effect, due to the need for primary legislation, in 2026 firms will hope for clarity on the duties, powers and mechanisms the FCA will have, and hope for a clearer picture of how the FCA intends to exercise its new powers. While current information is limited, it seems likely that FCA investigations will be more forceful, and contain significantly greater reputational risk for firms therein, with the need to prepare stakeholders for sharper external scrutiny. In the interim, there is also uncertainty as to the impact on cases currently under investigation by the SRA and the effect on timelines.
Alongside these regulatory reforms, an emerging trend likely to continue to build momentum through 2026 is in expectations of transparency by default in the courts in England and Wales. The Disclosure Pilot (now live in the CPR as the disclosure regime for the Business and Property Courts) has raised expectations around a public-by-default stance on key documents. While this pilot represents an evolution in public access rather than a transformation, nonetheless parties and legal teams will need to plan proactively for the reputational risks and impact that will result from the media having access to key documents that will now be public by default, because in a more transparent court environment, the reputational consequences of what emerges through disclosure can be as material as the legal outcome itself.
