header-logo header-logo

Home Login E-newsletter About us
09 April 2009 / Simon Young
Issue: 7364 / Categories: Features , Legal services , Profession
printer mail-detail

A hard Act to follow?

© Copyright LexisNexis 2026. All Rights Reserved.

Part one: Simon Young puts the Legal Services Act under the microscope

The last year has seen the creation of the various authorities required to operate the Legal Services Act 2007 (LSA 2007), and this, the first in a series exploring the effects of LSA 2007, concentrates on them. They are respectively:

      
      ●     The Legal Services Board (LSB)—the űber-regulator.

      
      ●     The Office for Legal Complaints (OLC)—to replace not only the Legal Complaints Service arm of the Law Society, but also the Legal Services Ombudsman and the Legal Services Complaints Commissioner.

      
      ●     The Consumer Panel—created by the LSB to represent both individual and business consumers.

      
      ●     The Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal (SDT)—given statutory independence by LSA 2007 and now a company limited by guarantee.

      
      ●     The professional bodies, eg the Law Society (the Society) operating either in a representative function or through their regulatory arms, eg the Solicitors Regulatory Authority (SRA).

One thing that these bodies have in common is the death of the

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
Freeths—Rachel Crosier

Freeths—Rachel Crosier

Projects and rail practices strengthened by director hire in London

Bird & Bird—Gordon Moir

Bird & Bird—Gordon Moir

London tech and comms team boosted by telecoms and regulatory hires

DWF—Stephen Hickling

DWF—Stephen Hickling

Real estate team in Birmingham welcomes back returning partner

NEWS
Read All
NLJ this week: 40 years on, has PACE lost its edge?
The Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 transformed criminal justice. Writing in NLJ this week, Ed Cape of UWE and Matthew Hardcastle and Sandra Paul of Kingsley Napley trace its ‘seismic impact’
NLJ this week: Stress-testing the City
Operational resilience is no longer optional. Writing in NLJ this week, Emma Radmore and Michael Lewis of Womble Bond Dickinson explain how UK regulators expect firms to identify ‘important business services’ that could cause ‘intolerable levels of harm’ if disrupted
NLJ this week: How sure is ‘sure’ enough?
Criminal juries may be convicting—or acquitting—on a misunderstanding. Writing in NLJ this week Paul McKeown, Adrian Keane and Sally Stares of The City Law School and LSE report troubling survey findings on the meaning of ‘sure’
NLJ this week: A deferred prosecution reprieve
The Serious Fraud Office (SFO) has narrowly preserved a key weapon in its anti-corruption arsenal. In this week's NLJ, Jonathan Fisher KC of Red Lion Chambers examines Guralp Systems Ltd v SFO, in which the High Court ruled that a deferred prosecution agreement (DPA) remained in force despite the company’s failure to disgorge £2m by the stated deadline
NLJ this week: Mandelson, Epstein & the court of popular opinion
As the drip-feed of Epstein disclosures fuels ‘collateral damage’, the rush to cry misconduct in public office may be premature. Writing in NLJ this week, David Locke of Hill Dickinson warns that the offence is no catch-all for political embarrassment. It demands a ‘grave departure’ from proper standards, an ‘abuse of the public’s trust’ and conduct ‘sufficiently serious to warrant criminal punishment’
Copyright © 2026 LexisNexis
back-to-top-scroll