header-logo header-logo

08 June 2015
Issue: 7656 / Categories: Legal News
printer mail-detail

Separate businesses ban lifted

The prohibition on solicitors owning or having connections with outside businesses is to be abolished, the Solicitors Regulation Authority (SRA) Board has decided.

The board voted last week to change the separate business rule, which prevents solicitors having links to separate businesses providing non-reserved legal services and therefore outside the remit of regulation. This means law firms will be able to compete on a level playing field with alternative business structures (ABSs) by owning, being owned by, actively participating in or developing links with separate businesses.

The board also voted to reform the rules on what activities law firms can undertake, which will make it easier for them to create one-stop shops for professional services. Instead, the regulator will focus on ensuring outcomes that protect the consumer.

The reforms were consulted on from November to February. They now need to be approved by the Legal Services Board and, if agreed, will become part of the Solicitors Handbook on 1 November.

David Greene, partner at Edwin Coe, says: “The policy lying behind the Separate Business Rule is to forestall confusion on the part of the consumer as to what part of a solicitor’s service is regulated.  

“We presume that another method will be prescribed to resolve that issue. For solicitors, the removal of the Separate Business restriction is undoubtedly good news. We have faced fierce competition for legal advice that falls outside reserved activities, such as will writing.  

“The removal of the restriction will go some way to redress the position; allowing solicitors to establish businesses offering ‘legal services’ that benefit from the branding of solicitor but fall outside the regulated environment.”      

Paul Philip, SRA chief executive, says: “We are levelling the playing field for all types of law firms, encouraging innovation and growth, while ensuring appropriate consumer protection. 

“This follows on from changes we made last year to open up the market to different business models and ‘one-stop shop’ services. We are now looking into what more we should do to give solicitors even more flexibility in future.”

 

Issue: 7656 / Categories: Legal News
printer mail-details

MOVERS & SHAKERS

NLJ Career Profile: John McElroy, London Solicitors Litigation Association

NLJ Career Profile: John McElroy, London Solicitors Litigation Association

From first-generation student to trailblazing president of the London Solicitors Litigation Association, John McElroy of Fieldfisher reflects on resilience, identity and the power of bringing your whole self to the law

Clarke Willmott—Elaine Field

Clarke Willmott—Elaine Field

Planning and environment team expands with partner hire in Manchester

Birketts—Barbara Hamilton-Bruce

Birketts—Barbara Hamilton-Bruce

Firm appoints chief operating officer to strengthen leadership team

NEWS
A landmark Supreme Court ruling has underscored the sweeping reach of UK sanctions. In NLJ this week, Brónagh Adams and Harriet Campbell of Penningtons Manches Cooper say the regime is a ‘blunt instrument’ requiring only a factual, not causal, link to restricted goods
Fraud claims are surging, with England and Wales increasingly the forum of choice for global disputes. Writing in NLJ this week, Jon Felce of Cooke, Young & Keidan reports claims have risen sharply, with fraud now a major share of litigation and costing billions worldwide
Litigators digesting Mazur are being urged to tighten oversight and compliance. In his latest 'Insider' column for NLJ this week, Professor Dominic Regan of City Law School provides a cut out and keep guide to the ruling’s core test: whether an unauthorised individual is ‘in truth acting on behalf of the authorised individual’
Conflicting county court rulings have left landlords uncertain over whether they can force entry after tenants refuse access. In this week's NLJ, Edward Blakeney and Ashpen Rajah of Falcon Chambers outline a split: some judges permit it under CPR 70.2A, others insist only Parliament can authorise such powers
A wave of scandals has reignited debate over misconduct in public office, criticised as unclear and inconsistently applied. Writing in NLJ this week, Alice Lepeuple of WilmerHale says the offence’s ‘vagueness, overbreadth & inconsistent deployment’ have undermined confidence
back-to-top-scroll