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

Bell Yard Kysen—Liz Giles

Bell Yard Kysen—Liz Giles

Bell Yard Kysen appoints senior legal PR and ex-government communications adviser, Liz Giles

Clarke Willmott—Lee Edwards

Clarke Willmott—Lee Edwards

Clarke Willmott boosts Southampton commercial property team with addition of partner Lee Edwards

Lime Solicitors—four promotions

Lime Solicitors—four promotions

Lime Solicitors announces four promotions

NEWS
An indemnity costs battle with a £20m gap could reopen an important question: what weight should an approved budget carry?
The Environment Agency can prosecute offences beyond environmental legislation where proceedings support its statutory functions, the Divisional Court has confirmed
Should a conviction stand when a later ruling reveals that the law underpinning it was wrong? The answer exposes a clash between finality and justice
Witness evidence can be compromised by AI before a solicitor sees the draft, leaving safeguards focused on authorship incomplete
Possession claims are entering a new digital era, with procedural traps awaiting practitioners who assume familiar rules still govern every step
back-to-top-scroll