Professor
Stephen Mayson, of the University College London (UCL) Centre for Ethics and
Law, published the interim report of his independent review of legal services
regulation this week, highlighting a wide range of potential reforms.
Prof Mayson
described reservation as ‘anachronistic’, although he found the justification
for reserved activities stronger in some cases, such as rights of audience and
the conduct of litigation, than others, such as probate activity and the
administration of oaths. While there ‘might remain a need’ for reservation for
‘certain public interest or high-risk legal activities’, he said it was
‘debateable’ whether the concept of reservation should continue.
Other key
proposals were that all consumers of legal services be allowed to ask the Legal
Ombudsman for help, and that those who provide legal services but do not hold a
legal professional title should be given entry to regulation.
He thought the
separation of regulatory from representative functions ‘unsatisfactory’, and
said the current approach of regulation made ‘the desirable cooperation and
collaboration between regulatory and representative functions problematic to
achieve’.
‘In principle,
regulators are the natural (and arguably better) guardians of consumers’
interests, by determining and enforcing the minimum or basic requirements for
legal services,’ his report states.
‘Equally, the
professional bodies are the natural (and arguably better) custodians of the
higher standards and aspirations associated with a professional calling and
vocation.’
He concludes
that the shortcomings in the current regulatory framework ‘justify further
reform’.
Matthew Hill,
chief executive of the Legal Services Board, said: ‘Stephen’s report is a
thorough and thoughtful analysis of a complex set of issues. It touches on a
number of key areas that are of interest to us, and on which we look forward to
engaging further in due course.’
Prof Mayson’s
final report is due in January 2020.
.tmb-mov69x69.jpg?sfvrsn=16d9dd3d_1)
