header-logo header-logo

12 March 2009 / John Randall
Issue: 7360 / Categories: Features , Profession
printer mail-detail

Intolerable strain

The single regulatory framework is out of step with today’s marketplace.
John Randall explains why

For the last quarter of a century, regulation of the solicitors’ profession has been guided by Lord Diplock’s dicta in Swain v The Law Society [1983] 1 AC 598, [1982] 2 All ER 827 that rules should be made in the interests of “that section of the public that may be in need of legal services”. Today, that section of the public is no longer homogeneous, and its diverging interests place intolerable strains on a single regulatory regime. Public interests not only diverge, but can collide.

The rule on conflict that protects the interests of the private client in a matrimonial matter, or a small business dealing with its landlord, can act against the interests of sophisticated corporate clients, wishing to instruct a particular firm because of the scale, expertise, quality and global reach of its specialist services. For corporate clients information barriers may be sufficient to protect their interests. A rule that is appropriate to protect an unsophisticated client may

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

NLJ Career Profile: Nikki Bowker, Devonshires

NLJ Career Profile: Nikki Bowker, Devonshires

Nikki Bowker, head of litigation and dispute resolution at Devonshires, on career resilience, diversity in law and channelling Elle Woods when the pressure is on

Ellisons—Sarah Osborne

Ellisons—Sarah Osborne

Leasehold enfranchisement specialist joins residential property team

DWF—Chris Air

DWF—Chris Air

Firm strengthens commercial team in Manchester with partner appointment

NEWS
Contract damages are usually assessed at the date of breach—but not always. Writing in NLJ this week, Ian Gascoigne, knowledge lawyer at LexisNexis, examines the growing body of cases where courts have allowed later events to reshape compensation
The Supreme Court has restored ‘doctrinal coherence’ to unfair prejudice litigation, writes Natalie Quinlivan, partner at Fieldfisher LLP, in this week' NLJ
The High Court’s refusal to recognise a prolific sperm donor as a child’s legal parent has highlighted the risks of informal conception arrangements, according to Liam Hurren, associate at Kingsley Napley, in NLJ this week
The Court of Appeal’s decision in Mazur may have settled questions around litigation supervision, but the profession should not simply ‘move on’, argues Jennifer Coupland, CEO of CILEX, in this week's NLJ
A simple phrase like ‘subject to references’ may not protect employers as much as they think. Writing in NLJ this week, Ian Smith, barrister and emeritus professor of employment law at UEA, analyses recent employment cases showing how conditional job offers can still create binding contracts
back-to-top-scroll