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

Jurit LLP—Caroline Williams

Jurit LLP—Caroline Williams

Private wealth and tax team welcomes cross-border specialist as consultant

HFW—Simon Petch

HFW—Simon Petch

Global shipping practice expands with experienced ship finance partner hire

Freeths—Richard Lockhart

Freeths—Richard Lockhart

Infrastructure specialist joins as partner in Glasgow office

NEWS
Talk of a reserved ‘Welsh seat’ on the Supreme Court is misplaced. In NLJ this week, Professor Graham Zellick KC explains that the Constitutional Reform Act treats ‘England and Wales’ as one jurisdiction, with no statutory Welsh slot
The government’s plan to curb jury trials has sparked ‘jury furore’. Writing in NLJ this week, David Locke, partner at Hill Dickinson, says the rationale is ‘grossly inadequate’
A year after the $1.5bn Bybit heist, crypto fraud is booming—but so is recovery. Writing in NLJ this week, Neil Holloway, founder and CEO of M2 Recovery, warns that scams hit at least $14bn in 2025, fuelled by ‘pig butchering’ cons and AI deepfakes
After Woodcock confirmed no general duty to warn, debate turns to the criminal law. Writing in NLJ this week, Charles Davey of The Barrister Group urges revival of misprision or a modern equivalent
Family courts are tightening control of expert evidence. Writing in NLJ this week, Dr Chris Pamplin says there is ‘no automatic right’ to call experts; attendance must be ‘necessary in the interests of justice’ under FPR Pt 25
back-to-top-scroll