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

Thackray Williams—Lucy Zhu

Thackray Williams—Lucy Zhu

Dual-qualified partner joins as head of commercial property department

Morgan Lewis—David A. McManus

Morgan Lewis—David A. McManus

Firm announces appointment of next chair

Burges Salmon—Rebecca Wilsker

Burges Salmon—Rebecca Wilsker

Director joins corporate team from the US

NEWS
What safeguards apply when trust corporations are appointed as deputy by the Court of Protection? 
Disputing parties are expected to take part in alternative dispute resolution (ADR), where this is suitable for their case. At what point, however, does refusing to participate cross the threshold of ‘unreasonable’ and attract adverse costs consequences?
When it comes to free legal advice, demand massively outweighs supply. 'Millions of people are excluded from access to justice as they don’t have anywhere to turn for free advice—or don’t know that they can ask for help,' Bhavini Bhatt, development director at the Access to Justice Foundation, writes in this week's NLJ
When an ex-couple is deciding who gets what in the divorce or civil partnership dissolution, when is it appropriate for a third party to intervene? David Burrows, NLJ columnist and solicitor advocate, considers this thorny issue in this week’s NLJ
NLJ's latest Charities Appeals Supplement has been published in this week’s issue
back-to-top-scroll