header-logo header-logo

28 June 2022
Issue: 7985 / Categories: Legal News , Profession , Regulatory
printer mail-detail

March of the unregulated legal sector

The for-profit unregulated legal services sector may account for up to 9% of the market for individuals and 39% of the market for SMEs, researchers have found

Its biggest market is in personal injury, conveyancing, will-writing, tax, trading, and employee issues.

The Legal Services Board (LSB) published its study, Mapping unregulated legal services, this week. As well as charting the scale of the sector, it found their services were generally cheaper, with will-writing typically charged on a fixed price basis and flight compensation claims as a percentage success fee.

However, clients of the unregulated sector were more likely to report dissatisfaction, and some case studies uncovered instances of errors in documents and unexpected costs.

Moreover, clients of unregulated providers do not have access to redress through the Legal Ombudsman or to specific regulators such as the Solicitors Regulation Authority or Bar Standards Board.

LSB chief executive Matthew Hill said: ‘We must strike the right balance between increasing access to justice and protecting consumers.

‘We will weigh the findings from the research with a range of other insights and evidence as we consider whether changes to the scope of regulations are warranted in the future.’

However, Law Society president I Stephanie Boyce said: ‘This research confirms the consumer benefits of using regulated providers.

‘Reservation should be considered in a mixture of possible measures for high-risk areas where there is increased evidence of consumer harm, such as will-writing, estate administration, Lasting Powers of Attorney and trusts. With an increasingly aging population, these areas call for regulatory attention to ensure that vulnerable people – particularly those with mental incapacity – are sufficiently protected.

‘We are still concerned about the public’s confusion about the difference between regulated and unregulated providers. Consumers must be made aware of the limited redress available from unregulated providers compared to the substantial redress available from regulated providers.’
Issue: 7985 / Categories: Legal News , Profession , Regulatory
printer mail-details

MOVERS & SHAKERS

Winckworth Sherwood—Charlotte Coleman & Qaisar Sheikh

Winckworth Sherwood—Charlotte Coleman & Qaisar Sheikh

Two promoted to partner in property litigation and education teams

Dorsey & Whitney LLP—Peter Knust

Dorsey & Whitney LLP—Peter Knust

Cross-border finance and restructuring specialist joins as of counsel in London

Powell Gilbert—Callum Beamish-Lacey

Powell Gilbert—Callum Beamish-Lacey

IP firm promotes litigator to partnership

NEWS

From blockbuster judgments to procedural shake-ups, the courts are busy reshaping litigation practice. Writing in NLJ this week, Professor Dominic Regan of City Law School hails the Court of Appeal's 'exquisite judgment’ in Mazur restoring the role of supervised non-qualified staff, and highlights a ‘mammoth’ damages ruling likened to War and Peace, alongside guidance on medical reporting fees, where a pragmatic 25% uplift was imposed

Momentum is building behind proposals to restrict children’s access to social media—but the legal and practical challenges are formidable. In NLJ this week, Nick Smallwood of Mills & Reeve examines global moves, including Australia’s under-16 ban and the UK's consultation
Reforms designed to rebalance landlord-tenant relations may instead penalise leaseholders themselves. In this week's NLJ, Mike Somekh of The Freehold Collective warns that the Leasehold and Freehold Reform Act 2024 risks creating an ‘underclass’ of resident-controlled freehold companies
Timing is everything—and the Court of Appeal has delivered clarity on when proceedings are ‘brought’. In his latest 'Civil way' column for NLJ, Stephen Gold explains that a claim is issued for limitation purposes when the claim form is delivered to the court, even if fees are underpaid
The traditional ‘single, intensive day’ of financial dispute resolution (FDR) may be due for a rethink. Writing in NLJ this week, Rachel Frost-Smith and Lauren Guiler of Birketts propose a ‘split FDR’ model, separating judicial evaluation from negotiation
back-to-top-scroll