header-logo header-logo

15 February 2013 / Antony Townsend
Issue: 7548 / Categories: Features , Profession
printer mail-detail

Right to reply

Antony Townsend responds to criticism of the SRA’s approach to regulation

Ronnie Fox’s colourful perspective on the requirements of regulation paints a picture of a legal profession suffocating under a blanket of red tape and bureaucracy (“Under pressure”). The burden of regulation (not just from the Solicitors Regulation Authority (SRA)) is a real issue for legal services; but his caricature of outcomes-focused regulation (OFR) is neither accurate nor does it reflect the emerging evidence on the views of the profession.

Outcomes-focused regulation

OFR was launched on 6 October 2011. It is designed to replace traditional “tick-box” regulation with a new risk-based approach, allowing firms to achieve the right outcomes by delivering legal services in a way which best suits their individual clients and meets the public interest. The old Code of Conduct was 290 pages; the new one is 36 pages.

Ronnie suggests that the new approach leaves the profession to cope with uncertainty, and contrasts this with the supposed certainty of the old Code. It is true that OFR

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

Ogier—Martin Livingston

Ogier—Martin Livingston

Martin Livingston joins Ogier in Cayman to strengthen regulatory support

Blake Morgan—47 promotions

Blake Morgan—47 promotions

Blake Morgan announces 47 summer promotions across UK offices

NEWS
Consultant-led law firms should prepare for closer regulatory attention as oversight evolves
Artificial intelligence may draft workplace grievances, but employers cannot treat them any differently from conventional complaints
From dishonest claimants to judicial promotions and procedural skirmishes, the latest legal developments offer plenty for litigators to digest
Fresh guidance is set to influence how courts decide whether hearings take place online or in person
County Court judges remain divided over whether landlords can lawfully force entry to carry out essential safety inspections after tenants ignore access injunctions
back-to-top-scroll