header-logo header-logo

Home Login E-newsletter About us
02 September 2010
Issue: 7431 / Categories: Legal News
printer mail-detail

Call for structural change

© Copyright LexisNexis 2026. All Rights Reserved.

Legal Services Institute question reserved legal activities

A legal think tank has called for a radical overhaul of the right of audience, notarial activities and other reserved legal activities which can only be carried out by certain authorised persons.

The Legal Services Institute (LSI), an offshoot of the College of Law, looked into the historical reasons behind the reserved legal activity structure and concluded it had “tenuous foundations”. The six reserved legal activities also include the conduct of litigation; reserved instrument activities; probate activities; and the administration of oaths. 

According to the LSI paper, Reserved Legal Activities: History and Rationale, the reasoning behind reserving such activities is “obscure” and there is “evidence that at least some of them were intended for the protection of the legal profession”.

The LSI is calling on the Legal Services Board to draw up a general set of criteria for defining activities as reserved, and argues that reservation must be shown to be in the public interest. It claims consumers are “bewildered” as to why these activities are reserved.

Professor Stephen

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
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
Read All
NLJ this week: Mazur and more—inside the litigation frontline

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

NLJ this week: Social media bans for children spark legal dilemmas
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
NLJ this week: Leasehold reform risks creating ‘forgotten freeholders’
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
NLJ this week: Court of Appeal clarifies when a claim truly begins
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
NLJ this week: Split FDRs could ease pressure—and boost settlements
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
Copyright © 2026 LexisNexis
back-to-top-scroll