header-logo header-logo

Freelance plans approved

08 November 2018
Issue: 7816 / Categories: Legal News , Legal services , Profession
printer mail-detail

Solicitors can now practise from unregulated firms, despite protests

The Legal Services Board (LSB) has given the green light to controversial plans to allow freelance solicitors and let regulated solicitors practise from unregulated firms—despite protestations by the Law Society that they put consumers at risk.

The Looking to the Future reforms, proposed by the Solicitors Regulation Authority (SRA), were approved in full this week. Solicitors can now provide unreserved services while working from an unregulated organisation. Self-employed solicitors can provide reserved services without being authorised as an entity. 

LSB chair, Dr Helen Phillips, acknowledged that there were ‘some potential risks’ but added that ‘when set against the potential benefits… these risks do not create compelling grounds for refusing the proposal.

‘In addition to likely benefits to access to justice, promoting competition and the public interest, we considered that there was some merit in the SRA's argument that these changes could be seen to increase consumer protection, given that many consumers already use unregulated providers and in doing so receive no regulatory protections.’

However, Law Society president Christina Blacklaws said the rule change was a ‘serious error’ that ‘sacrificed the best interests of the public’.

‘They have ignored unprecedented levels of opposition from consumer bodies, legal experts and the extensive evidence of the risks of deregulation of this kind in this market,’ she said.

‘The door is now open for practitioners to cut their costs by slashing essential client protections that until today have provided cast-iron reassurance for clients. A high street where different tiers of solicitor, with different levels of protections offer the same services to passers-by will make it more difficult for people who need legal advice to reach informed choices often at very traumatic moments in their lives, such as divorce and bereavement.’

The LSB received more than 130 unsolicited letters and emails about the reforms, the vast majority of which opposed the plans.

Issue: 7816 / Categories: Legal News , Legal services , Profession
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