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 Mayson, director of the LSI, says: “The origins of many of the reservations of legal activities are remarkably obscure.
“We consider that the often non-existent evidence of Parliamentary debate at the time the reservations were created or confirmed provides little basis for suggesting a common policy rationale that justifies their existence. Instead we tend to find after-the-event rationalisations and justifications for reservation.
“In our view, this does not provide a sound basis for the LSB to propose adding legal services to, or removing them from, the current list. Because reserved activities are a fundamental pillar of the Legal Services Act and its intended reforms, as well as its approach to the regulatory framework, we must express surprise and concern that the structure appears to be built on such tenuous foundations.”
The LSI will publish a second research paper later this year on reserved activities.
