header-logo header-logo

Could regulators do more to boost access to justice?

02 April 2025
Issue: 8111 / Categories: Legal News , Regulatory , Legal services
printer mail-detail
One single regulator for all legal services, regulation of all paralegals and a duty on regulators to ‘creatively’ tackle access to justice barriers are among a raft of proposals being considered by the Legal Services Board (LSB).

The report, ‘Regulatory leadership on access to justice’, compiled by Nottingham Law School and published this week by the Legal Services Consumer Panel, contains 17 recommendations in total. The panel’s role is to advise the LSB.

The 154-page report cites a range of barriers to justice, including the closure of legal advice centres, legal aid deserts and lack of public awareness about legal rights. It urges the LSB and frontline regulators to revise codes of conduct to place more emphasis on access to justice and to support ‘tailored and strategic’ initiatives to educate the public on legal matters.

It suggests the LSB take a lead role in fostering collaboration between charities, government and other regulators to address systemic causes of injustice, and create an ‘innovation sandbox’ to test ideas. The LSB should also investigate mandatory regulation of paralegals to create more ‘trusted intermediaries’ to help the public, it says.

Dr Liz Curran, associate professor at Nottingham Law School, said: ‘A creative, problem-solving, and evidence-based approach is crucial.

‘This research report demonstrates what can be achieved and how.’

Long-term, the LSB could become the only regulator for legal services and be a grant-awarding body, the report says, although it anticipates ‘pushback’ from existing regulators.

Other suggestions include collaboration between frontline regulators and the insurance sector to investigate whether legal expenses insurance can be expanded, and to review professional indemnity cover.

The report also proposes regulators offer continuing professional development (CPD) options in access to justice work, and considers changes to pricing and income generation models for lawyers, which would require ‘some legislative amendment as well as cultural change’.

Issue: 8111 / Categories: Legal News , Regulatory , Legal services
printer mail-details

MOVERS & SHAKERS

Carey Olsen—Kim Paiva

Carey Olsen—Kim Paiva

Group partner joins Guernsey banking and finance practice

Morgan Lewis—Kat Gibson

Morgan Lewis—Kat Gibson

London labour and employment team announces partner hire

Foot Anstey McKees—Chris Milligan & Michael Kelly

Foot Anstey McKees—Chris Milligan & Michael Kelly

Double partner appointment marks Belfast expansion

NEWS
The Ministry of Justice (MoJ) has not done enough to protect the future sustainability of the legal aid market, MPs have warned
Writing in NLJ this week, NLJ columnist Dominic Regan surveys a landscape marked by leapfrog appeals, costs skirmishes and notable retirements. With an appeal in Mazur due to be heard next month, Regan notes that uncertainties remain over who will intervene, and hopes for the involvement of the Lady Chief Justice and the Master of the Rolls in deciding the all-important outcome
After the Southport murders and the misinformation that followed, contempt of court law has come under intense scrutiny. In this week's NLJ, Lawrence McNamara and Lauren Schaefer of the Law Commission unpack proposals aimed at restoring clarity without sacrificing fair trial rights
The latest Home Office figures confirm that stop and search remains both controversial and diminished. Writing in NLJ this week, Neil Parpworth of De Montfort University analyses data showing historically low use of s 1 PACE powers, with drugs searches dominating what remains
Boris Johnson’s 2019 attempt to shut down Parliament remains a constitutional cautionary tale. The move, framed as a routine exercise of the royal prerogative, was in truth an extraordinary effort to sideline Parliament at the height of the Brexit crisis. Writing in NLJ this week, Professor Graham Zellick KC dissects how prorogation was wrongly assumed to be beyond judicial scrutiny, only for the Supreme Court to intervene unanimously
back-to-top-scroll