header-logo header-logo

09 July 2020 / Chris Bones
Issue: 7894 / Categories: Features , Regulatory , Profession
printer mail-detail

Regulation matters: why it’s time to change

Professor Chris Bones of CILEx explains why the legal profession should not stand in the way of regulatory change
  • Reforming the legal services market: a job half done.
  • Compromises of the Legal Services Act 2007: straining at the seams.
  • Professor Stephen Mayson’s recent independent review of legal regulation: engaging constructively with these new and important proposals.

The job of reforming the legal services market is only half done. Thirteen years on from the Legal Services Act 2007, it has become abundantly clear that the compromise it represented is straining at the seams, and the current COVID-19 crisis has brought this into even sharper relief for both the public and the profession.

Among the regulatory objectives laid down by the Act are protecting and promoting the public interest and the interests of consumers, as well as improving access to justice. Can anyone really claim that a market where the most vulnerable and disadvantaged sections of the public are simply not able to access affordable and effective legal

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

Jackson Lees Group—Jannina Barker, Laura Beattie & Catherine McCrindle

Jackson Lees Group—Jannina Barker, Laura Beattie & Catherine McCrindle

Firm promotes senior associate and team leader as wills, trusts and probate team expands

Asserson—Michael Francos-Downs

Asserson—Michael Francos-Downs

Manchester real estate finance practice welcomes legal director

McCarthy Denning—Harvey Knight & Martin Sandler

McCarthy Denning—Harvey Knight & Martin Sandler

Financial services and regulatory offering boosted by partner hires

NEWS
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
From cat fouling to Part 36 brinkmanship, the latest 'Civil way' round-up is a reminder that procedural skirmishes can have sharp teeth. NLJ columnist Stephen Gold ranges across recent decisions with his customary wit
back-to-top-scroll