header-logo header-logo

Home Login E-newsletter About us
20 September 2012 / Dr Jon Robins
Issue: 7530 / Categories: Opinion , Risk management , Profession
printer mail-detail

A breed apart

© Copyright LexisNexis 2026. All Rights Reserved.

Jon Robins considers how the profession is addressing a fundamental shift in regulation

The contrasting attitudes towards COLPs/ COFAs speak volumes about a divided profession. On the one hand, according to a recent survey, some three quarters of law firms expressed alarm as to the additional level of personal responsibility of taking on the role of compliance officers for legal practice (COLP) or compliance officers for finance and administration (COFA); and on the other some 800 law firms failed to nominate new style compliance officers by last month’s deadline.

To complete an unlovely trio of new style legal service acronyms, COLPs and COFAs are essential to the new world of OFR, or outcomes-focused regulation. OFR is the move to a principles-based system away from prescriptive detailed rules under the old code of conduct. The COFA is responsible for ensuring a firm complies with the Solicitors Regulation Authority’s (SRA’s) accounts rules and the COLP for compliance with other rules. This puts a particular burden of responsibility on the one or two employees chosen for

If you are not a subscriber, subscribe now to read this content
If you are already a subscriber sign in
...or Register for two weeks' free access to subscriber content

MOVERS & SHAKERS

Read All
Sponsored by
London Solicitors Litigation Association—John McElroy

London Solicitors Litigation Association—John McElroy

Fieldfisher partner appointed president as LSLA marks milestone year

Kingsley Napley—Kirsty Churm & Olivia Stiles

Kingsley Napley—Kirsty Churm & Olivia Stiles

Firm promotes two lawyers to partnership across employment and family

Foot Anstey—five promotions

Foot Anstey—five promotions

Firm promotes five lawyers to partnership across key growth areas

NEWS
Read All
NLJ this week: Divorce ‘nuclear weapon’ freezes assets but entangles outsiders
Freezing orders in divorce proceedings can unexpectedly ensnare third parties and disrupt businesses. In NLJ this week, Lucy James of Trowers & Hamlins explains how these orders—dubbed a ‘nuclear weapon’—preserve assets but can extend far beyond spouses to companies and business partners 
NLJ this week: What counts as ‘rent’? Court says labour alone won’t do
A Court of Appeal ruling has clarified that ‘rent’ must be monetary—excluding tenants paid in labour from statutory protection. In this week's NLJ, James Naylor explains Garraway v Phillips, where a tenant worked two days a week instead of paying rent
Your magistrates’ court needs you!
Thousands more magistrates are to be recruited, under a major shake-up to speed up and expand the hiring process
NLJ this week: Freed but failed—justice system leaves the innocent empty-handed
Three men wrongly imprisoned for a combined 77 years have been released—yet received ‘not a penny’ in compensation, exposing deep flaws in the justice system. Writing in NLJ this week, Dr Jon Robins reports on Justin Plummer, Oliver Campbell and Peter Sullivan, whose convictions collapsed amid discredited forensics, ‘oppressive’ police interviews and unreliable ‘cell confessions’
NLJ this week: Clarity on whistleblowing, settlements and tribunal limits
A quiet month for employment cases still delivers key legal clarifications. In his latest Employment Law Brief for NLJ, Ian Smith reports that whistleblowing protection remains intact even where disclosures are partly self-serving, provided the worker reasonably believes they serve the ‘public interest’ 
Copyright © 2026 LexisNexis
back-to-top-scroll