header-logo header-logo

27 November 2014
Issue: 7632 / Categories: Legal News
printer mail-detail

Bar slaps down “super-quango”

Chairman of Bar Council: single regulator is “last thing we need”

Nicholas Lavender QC, chairman of the Bar Council, has mounted a staunch defence ahead of any plans to introduce a single regulator “super-quango”.

In a speech to regulators and professionals at Lincoln’s Inn this week, he warned that constantly changing the regulatory regime for legal services is costly and lawyers need time to let the current regime bed in.

On the possibility of a single regulator being introduced—the Legal Services Board (LSB) controversially called for a single legal services regulator in 2013—Lavender warned that a super-quango would fail to understand the differences between the various parts of the legal profession and would try to impose a one-size-fits-all concept of regulation.

“The last thing we need in this country, and certainly in the legal profession, is more or bigger quangos,” he said.

“I trust that no-one in this room would consider it appropriate for lawyers to be regulated directly by a government minister. Likewise, it would be unsatisfactory for lawyers to be regulated by a government minister’s agents or appointees.

“So that is another reason why it would be an inappropriate and retrograde step to set up an new quango, or series of quangos, to regulate, say advocates, and litigators, and conveyancers, and what have you. And establishing a super-quango, with the attendant bureaucracy, would be a backwards step because it would be likely to lead to regulation which was both more expensive and of poorer quality.

“We need a regulatory system which respects the independence of lawyers and of the legal professions. One of the important safeguards of the rule of law is the existence of an independent legal profession or professions.”

Lavender also took aim at the concept of entity-based regulation, which would not work in the area of advocacy and was “simply a fashionable idea amongst regulators”.

Meanwhile, lawyers are still getting to grips with the Legal Services Act 2007 and the regulatory regime it introduced. Moreover, the LSB, Bar Standards Board and Solicitors Regulation Authority will all have acquired new heads in the space of eight months, adding to the changes.

Issue: 7632 / Categories: Legal News
printer mail-details

MOVERS & SHAKERS

Laytons ETL—Maximilian Kraitt

Laytons ETL—Maximilian Kraitt

Commercial firm strengthens real estate disputes team with associate hire

Switalskis—three appointments

Switalskis—three appointments

Firm appoints three directors to board

Browne Jacobson—seven promotions

Browne Jacobson—seven promotions

Six promoted to partner and one to legal director across UK and Ireland offices

NEWS

From blockbuster judgments to procedural shake-ups, the courts are busy reshaping litigation practice. Writing in NLJ this week, Professor Dominic Regan of City Law School hails the Court of Appeal's 'exquisite judgment’ in Mazur restoring the role of supervised non-qualified staff, and highlights a ‘mammoth’ damages ruling likened to War and Peace, alongside guidance on medical reporting fees, where a pragmatic 25% uplift was imposed

Momentum is building behind proposals to restrict children’s access to social media—but the legal and practical challenges are formidable. In NLJ this week, Nick Smallwood of Mills & Reeve examines global moves, including Australia’s under-16 ban and the UK's consultation
Reforms designed to rebalance landlord-tenant relations may instead penalise leaseholders themselves. In this week's NLJ, Mike Somekh of The Freehold Collective warns that the Leasehold and Freehold Reform Act 2024 risks creating an ‘underclass’ of resident-controlled freehold companies
Timing is everything—and the Court of Appeal has delivered clarity on when proceedings are ‘brought’. In his latest 'Civil way' column for NLJ, Stephen Gold explains that a claim is issued for limitation purposes when the claim form is delivered to the court, even if fees are underpaid
The traditional ‘single, intensive day’ of financial dispute resolution (FDR) may be due for a rethink. Writing in NLJ this week, Rachel Frost-Smith and Lauren Guiler of Birketts propose a ‘split FDR’ model, separating judicial evaluation from negotiation
back-to-top-scroll