header-logo header-logo

08 October 2009
Issue: 7388 / Categories: Legal News , Regulatory , Profession
printer mail-detail

Hunt review signals end to box-ticking

Self-regulation likely to be welcomed by City solicitors

City solicitors are likely to be pleased by Lord Hunt’s review into law firm regulation, which advocates self-regulation for the most robust firms, better communications, and an end to box-ticking.
Lord Hunt’s review, which was commissioned by the Law Society last October, proposes that “authorised internal regulation” (AIR), or self-regulation, be made available to any law firm whose risk, compliance and governance processes are deemed sufficiently robust by the Solicitors Regulation Authority (SRA).
Proposals for a specialist division of the SRA to be set up to exclusively handle corporate firms were advanced in March this year in a report by former civil servant Nicholas Smedley, and received strong support in the City.
While Lord Hunt’s review, published this week, falls short of this—AIR status would potentially be available to all law firms—it goes some way to granting the City’s wishes.
The large corporate firms, which have sophisticated internal compliance and risk awareness set-ups, will be the first to adopt the new status.
The review calls for a move towards more principles-based regulation and away from box-ticking on specific requirements.

 Will-writing and probate work should be regulated, and claims management companies should be brought within the aegis of the Legal Services Board. Lord Hunt also recommends that the SRA should make greater use of consumer feedback and “mystery shoppers” and that solicitors should make a declaration similar to the hippocratic oath when they receive their practising certificate.

Graham Reid, employed barrister at Reynolds Porter Chamberlain, and a specialist in solicitor regulation, says the 115-page, 88-recommendation report was a “virtuoso performance”.

However, he questioned the incentive for firms to seek AIR status. “It’s a voluntary process, and I am unclear about why one would want to do this,” he said. “If AIR-approved, you won’t pay as much in fees, but I’m not sure that’s going to be the biggest incentive. It may be that this is Lord Hunt’s way of heading off suggestions for separate regulation for City firms.”

Reid welcomed Lord Hunt’s proposals for a more principles-based approach, which would encourage solicitors to “step back from box-ticking, and get into the mindset of what the regulator wants them to do”.

Many of Lord Hunt’s proposals would “foster a grown-up dialogue” between firm and regulator, he says, for example, the proposal that firms risk-assess themselves and share that information with the SRA.

Issue: 7388 / Categories: Legal News , Regulatory , Profession
printer mail-details

MOVERS & SHAKERS

Jurit LLP—Caroline Williams

Jurit LLP—Caroline Williams

Private wealth and tax team welcomes cross-border specialist as consultant

HFW—Simon Petch

HFW—Simon Petch

Global shipping practice expands with experienced ship finance partner hire

Freeths—Richard Lockhart

Freeths—Richard Lockhart

Infrastructure specialist joins as partner in Glasgow office

NEWS
Talk of a reserved ‘Welsh seat’ on the Supreme Court is misplaced. In NLJ this week, Professor Graham Zellick KC explains that the Constitutional Reform Act treats ‘England and Wales’ as one jurisdiction, with no statutory Welsh slot
The government’s plan to curb jury trials has sparked ‘jury furore’. Writing in NLJ this week, David Locke, partner at Hill Dickinson, says the rationale is ‘grossly inadequate’
A year after the $1.5bn Bybit heist, crypto fraud is booming—but so is recovery. Writing in NLJ this week, Neil Holloway, founder and CEO of M2 Recovery, warns that scams hit at least $14bn in 2025, fuelled by ‘pig butchering’ cons and AI deepfakes
After Woodcock confirmed no general duty to warn, debate turns to the criminal law. Writing in NLJ this week, Charles Davey of The Barrister Group urges revival of misprision or a modern equivalent
Family courts are tightening control of expert evidence. Writing in NLJ this week, Dr Chris Pamplin says there is ‘no automatic right’ to call experts; attendance must be ‘necessary in the interests of justice’ under FPR Pt 25
back-to-top-scroll