header-logo header-logo

24 September 2009
Categories: Legal News , Legal services , Profession
printer mail-detail

Regulatory boards to have lay majority

New measures for regulating lawyers, including a lay majority on each regulatory board, have been branded a “curate’s egg” by the Law Society.

The Legal Services Board (LSB), which oversees the Law Society, Bar Council and six other approved legal professional regulators, announced the measures, published as ‘Internal Governance and Practising Fee Rules’, last week.

They include: a requirement that regulatory boards have a lay majority, while allowing flexibility on whether the chair is held by a lawyer or a lay person; proposals to ensure the provision of resources is “as effective, efficient and fair as possible”; and a timetable, which will see rules made by the board translated into action.

The LSB published its consultation paper on the proposed changes, Regulatory Independence, in March. The proposed rules will come into force on 1 January, 2010.

However, Des Hudson, chief executive of the Law Society, said: “Like the curate's egg some parts seem more appetising than others.

“We are concerned that the LSB has concluded that the regulatory board should have a lay

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

Freeths—Rachel Crosier

Freeths—Rachel Crosier

Projects and rail practices strengthened by director hire in London

Bird & Bird—Gordon Moir

Bird & Bird—Gordon Moir

London tech and comms team boosted by telecoms and regulatory hires

DWF—Stephen Hickling

DWF—Stephen Hickling

Real estate team in Birmingham welcomes back returning partner

NEWS
Refusing ADR is risky—but not always fatal. Writing in NLJ this week, Masood Ahmed and Sanjay Dave Singh of the University of Leicester analyse Assensus Ltd v Wirsol Energy Ltd: despite repeated invitations to mediate, the defendant stood firm, made a £100,000 Part 36 offer and was ultimately ‘wholly vindicated’ at trial
The Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 transformed criminal justice. Writing in NLJ this week, Ed Cape of UWE and Matthew Hardcastle and Sandra Paul of Kingsley Napley trace its ‘seismic impact’
Operational resilience is no longer optional. Writing in NLJ this week, Emma Radmore and Michael Lewis of Womble Bond Dickinson explain how UK regulators expect firms to identify ‘important business services’ that could cause ‘intolerable levels of harm’ if disrupted
Criminal juries may be convicting—or acquitting—on a misunderstanding. Writing in NLJ this week Paul McKeown, Adrian Keane and Sally Stares of The City Law School and LSE report troubling survey findings on the meaning of ‘sure’
The Serious Fraud Office (SFO) has narrowly preserved a key weapon in its anti-corruption arsenal. In this week's NLJ, Jonathan Fisher KC of Red Lion Chambers examines Guralp Systems Ltd v SFO, in which the High Court ruled that a deferred prosecution agreement (DPA) remained in force despite the company’s failure to disgorge £2m by the stated deadline
back-to-top-scroll