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

NLJ Career Profile: John McElroy, London Solicitors Litigation Association

NLJ Career Profile: John McElroy, London Solicitors Litigation Association

From first-generation student to trailblazing president of the London Solicitors Litigation Association, John McElroy of Fieldfisher reflects on resilience, identity and the power of bringing your whole self to the law

Clarke Willmott—Elaine Field

Clarke Willmott—Elaine Field

Planning and environment team expands with partner hire in Manchester

Birketts—Barbara Hamilton-Bruce

Birketts—Barbara Hamilton-Bruce

Firm appoints chief operating officer to strengthen leadership team

NEWS
A landmark Supreme Court ruling has underscored the sweeping reach of UK sanctions. In NLJ this week, Brónagh Adams and Harriet Campbell of Penningtons Manches Cooper say the regime is a ‘blunt instrument’ requiring only a factual, not causal, link to restricted goods
Fraud claims are surging, with England and Wales increasingly the forum of choice for global disputes. Writing in NLJ this week, Jon Felce of Cooke, Young & Keidan reports claims have risen sharply, with fraud now a major share of litigation and costing billions worldwide
Litigators digesting Mazur are being urged to tighten oversight and compliance. In his latest 'Insider' column for NLJ this week, Professor Dominic Regan of City Law School provides a cut out and keep guide to the ruling’s core test: whether an unauthorised individual is ‘in truth acting on behalf of the authorised individual’
Conflicting county court rulings have left landlords uncertain over whether they can force entry after tenants refuse access. In this week's NLJ, Edward Blakeney and Ashpen Rajah of Falcon Chambers outline a split: some judges permit it under CPR 70.2A, others insist only Parliament can authorise such powers
A wave of scandals has reignited debate over misconduct in public office, criticised as unclear and inconsistently applied. Writing in NLJ this week, Alice Lepeuple of WilmerHale says the offence’s ‘vagueness, overbreadth & inconsistent deployment’ have undermined confidence
back-to-top-scroll