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.