header-logo header-logo

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

A new order?

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

NLJ Career Profile: Ken Fowlie, Stowe Family Law

NLJ Career Profile: Ken Fowlie, Stowe Family Law

Ken Fowlie, chairman of Stowe Family Law, reflects on more than 30 years in legal services after ‘falling into law’

Gardner Leader—Michelle Morgan & Catherine Morris

Gardner Leader—Michelle Morgan & Catherine Morris

Regional law firm expands employment team with partner and senior associate hires

Freeths—Carly Harwood & Tom Newton

Freeths—Carly Harwood & Tom Newton

Nottinghamtrusts, estates and tax team welcomes two senior associates

NEWS
Children can claim for ‘lost years’ damages in personal injury cases, the Supreme Court has held in a landmark judgment
The cab-rank rule remains a bulwark of the rule of law, yet lawyers are increasingly judged by their clients’ causes. Writing in NLJ this week, Ian McDougall, president of the LexisNexis Rule of Law Foundation, warns that conflating representation with endorsement is a ‘clear and present danger’
Holiday lets may promise easy returns, but restrictive covenants can swiftly scupper plans. Writing in NLJ this week, Andrew Francis of Serle Court recounts how covenants limiting use to a ‘private dwelling house’ or ‘private residence’ have repeatedly defeated short-term letting schemes
Artificial intelligence (AI) is already embedded in the civil courts, but regulation lags behind practice. Writing in NLJ this week, Ben Roe of Baker McKenzie charts a landscape where AI assists with transcription, case management and document handling, yet raises acute concerns over evidence, advocacy and even judgment-writing
The Supreme Court has drawn a firm line under branding creativity in regulated markets. In Dairy UK Ltd v Oatly AB, it ruled that Oatly’s ‘post-milk generation’ trade mark unlawfully deployed a protected dairy designation. In NLJ this week, Asima Rana of DWF explains that the court prioritised ‘regulatory clarity over creative branding choices’, holding that ‘designation’ extends beyond product names to marketing slogans
back-to-top-scroll