header-logo header-logo

15 September 2016
Issue: 7714 / Categories: Legal News
printer mail-detail

Single regulator would focus on “activity not job title”

Professional bodies have urged caution on Legal Services Board (LSB) proposals for a single regulator accountable to Parliament.

In a paper published this week, “A vision for legislative reform of the regulatory framework for legal services in England and Wales”, the LSB proposes the abolition of all existing regulators, including itself. Instead, legal services as a whole would be regulated by a new, single body independent both of the professions and government.

Regulation would focus on activity rather than professional title, such as barrister or solicitor, with tighter regulation of specific high risk activities.

LSB Chairman Sir Michael Pitt said the existing arrangements were “confusing and complex”, and a single regulator for the whole legal services sector “would be best placed to deliver improvement, deregulate, save cost and act strategically”. The new regulation framework, he said, “should take a risk-based approach to regulation and focus on the activities undertaken by providers”.

Paul Philip, SRA Chief Executive, said: “We are pleased that the LSB has set out a strong case for regulation to be independent of both the government and professions. We are clear that making regulators independent—and accountable to parliament—will help build public trust and should also help speed up necessary reforms to make the sector more competitive.

“However, we should pause for thought when considering fundamental constitutional changes, such as regulating by activity or moving to one single regulator. Some consolidation across the regulators seems to be inevitable in the longer term, but we must avoid being distracted by rewriting the regulatory landscape to the extent that we blight much needed market reforms.”

Law Society president Robert Bourns branded the proposals “misconceived”, particularly “during a period of unprecedented change for Britain, following the vote to leave the EU” when uncertainty should be reduced, not increased.

“Embarking on regulatory change in this climate, especially when there is broad recognition that the current regulatory framework is working, is misconceived,” he added.

Issue: 7714 / 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