header-logo header-logo

A new order?

24 September 2010 / Joe Bryant
Issue: 7434 / Categories: Features , Regulatory
printer mail-detail

Joe Bryant counts the cost of improved legal regulation

The winds of change are blowing through the regulatory infrastructure that underpins the legal profession; a welcome breeze of independence is wafting along the shiny new corridors of power. But, while consumer groups are queuing up to welcome the reforms, others will know that improved regulation always comes at a cost. The issue here is: who picks up the tab?
The reforms enshrined in the Legal Services Act focus on the organisational change needed to move away from self-regulation towards a more independent structure.

  • The Legal Services Board (LSB) has been created to be the “oversight regulator” for the entire legal profession, ie barristers and legal executives, as well as solicitors. It is an entirely independent body, with a mandate to raise public awareness of the standards against which the profession is to be assessed.
  • The Office for Legal Complaints (and its henchman, the Legal Ombudsman), will be the body that will get its hands dirty at the coalface when the profession falls short of those
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

Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan—Andrew Savage

Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan—Andrew Savage

Firm expands London disputes practice with senior partner hire

Druces—Lisa Cardy

Druces—Lisa Cardy

Senior associate promotion strengthens real estate offering

Charles Russell Speechlys—Robert Lundie Smith

Charles Russell Speechlys—Robert Lundie Smith

Leading patent litigator joins intellectual property team

NEWS
The government’s plan to introduce a Single Professional Services Supervisor could erode vital legal-sector expertise, warns Mark Evans, president of the Law Society of England and Wales, in NLJ this week
Writing in NLJ this week, Jonathan Fisher KC of Red Lion Chambers argues that the ‘failure to prevent’ model of corporate criminal responsibility—covering bribery, tax evasion, and fraud—should be embraced, not resisted
Professor Graham Zellick KC argues in NLJ this week that, despite Buckingham Palace’s statement stripping Andrew Mountbatten Windsor of his styles, titles and honours, he remains legally a duke
Writing in NLJ this week, Sophie Ashcroft and Miranda Joseph of Stevens & Bolton dissect the Privy Council’s landmark ruling in Jardine Strategic Ltd v Oasis Investments II Master Fund Ltd (No 2), which abolishes the long-standing 'shareholder rule'
In NLJ this week, Sailesh Mehta and Theo Burges of Red Lion Chambers examine the government’s first-ever 'Afghan leak' super-injunction—used to block reporting of data exposing Afghans who aided UK forces and over 100 British officials. Unlike celebrity privacy cases, this injunction centred on national security. Its use, the authors argue, signals the rise of a vast new body of national security law spanning civil, criminal, and media domains
back-to-top-scroll