header-logo header-logo

02 September 2010
Issue: 7431 / Categories: Legal News
printer mail-detail

Call for structural change

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

NLJ Career Profile: Nikki Bowker, Devonshires

NLJ Career Profile: Nikki Bowker, Devonshires

Nikki Bowker, head of litigation and dispute resolution at Devonshires, on career resilience, diversity in law and channelling Elle Woods when the pressure is on

Ellisons—Sarah Osborne

Ellisons—Sarah Osborne

Leasehold enfranchisement specialist joins residential property team

DWF—Chris Air

DWF—Chris Air

Firm strengthens commercial team in Manchester with partner appointment

NEWS
Contract damages are usually assessed at the date of breach—but not always. Writing in NLJ this week, Ian Gascoigne, knowledge lawyer at LexisNexis, examines the growing body of cases where courts have allowed later events to reshape compensation
The Supreme Court has restored ‘doctrinal coherence’ to unfair prejudice litigation, writes Natalie Quinlivan, partner at Fieldfisher LLP, in this week' NLJ
The High Court’s refusal to recognise a prolific sperm donor as a child’s legal parent has highlighted the risks of informal conception arrangements, according to Liam Hurren, associate at Kingsley Napley, in NLJ this week
The Court of Appeal’s decision in Mazur may have settled questions around litigation supervision, but the profession should not simply ‘move on’, argues Jennifer Coupland, CEO of CILEX, in this week's NLJ
A simple phrase like ‘subject to references’ may not protect employers as much as they think. Writing in NLJ this week, Ian Smith, barrister and emeritus professor of employment law at UEA, analyses recent employment cases showing how conditional job offers can still create binding contracts
back-to-top-scroll