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

Winckworth Sherwood—Tim Foley

Winckworth Sherwood—Tim Foley

Property litigation practice strengthened by partner hire

Kingsley Napley—Romilly Holland

Kingsley Napley—Romilly Holland

International arbitration team specialist joins the team

Red Lion Chambers—Maurice MacSweeney

Red Lion Chambers—Maurice MacSweeney

Set creates new client and business development role amid growth

NEWS
The rank of King’s Counsel (KC) has been awarded to 96 barristers, and no solicitors, in the latest silk round
Neurotechnology is poised to transform contract law—and unsettle it. Writing in NLJ this week, Harry Lambert, barrister at Outer Temple Chambers and founder of the Centre for Neurotechnology & Law, and Dr Michelle Sharpe, barrister at the Victorian Bar, explore how brain–computer interfaces could both prove and undermine consent
Comparators remain the fault line of discrimination law. In this week's NLJ, Anjali Malik, partner at Bellevue Law, and Mukhtiar Singh, barrister at Doughty Street Chambers, review a bumper year of appellate guidance clarifying how tribunals should approach ‘actual’ and ‘evidential’ comparators. A new six-stage framework stresses a simple starting point: identify the treatment first
In cross-border divorces, domicile can decide everything. In NLJ this week, Jennifer Headon, legal director and head of international family, Isobel Inkley, solicitor, and Fiona Collins, trainee solicitor, all at Birketts LLP, unpack a Court of Appeal ruling that re-centres nuance in jurisdiction disputes. The court held that once a domicile of choice is established, the burden lies on the party asserting its loss
Can a chief constable be held responsible for disobedient officers? Writing in NLJ this week, Neil Parpworth, professor of public law at De Montfort University, examines a Court of Appeal ruling that answers firmly: yes
back-to-top-scroll