In a report published this week, ‘Ongoing competence’, the LSB notes that while legal regulators take steps to ensure lawyers are competent when entering the profession, there are fewer formal or consistent checks in place to guarantee ongoing competence.
It looked at competence checks used in other sectors, such as financial services, aviation and teaching. It identified various potential approaches that could be used in the legal sector, including spot checks and file reviews, periodic reaccreditation requirements, using feedback such as reports from judges where concerns were raised, and further training or supervision requirements.
The LSB, which issued a call for evidence on this topic last year, now intends to develop a set of ‘high-level expectations’ for regulators.
The eight legal regulators will be expected to set out the standards of competence for legal professionals at the point of entry and throughout an individual’s career and have mechanisms in place to identify professionals who are failing to meet those standards, identify areas of increased risk for consumers, respond when standards fall short and provide appropriate consumer protection where there is an increased risk of harm.
The LSB highlighted concerns about competence in immigration and asylum practice where mistakes can have grave consequences, as well as the quality of some criminal advocacy and the risk of miscarriage of justice.
Helen Phillips, chair of the LSB, said: ‘Many people assume that legal professionals are subject to ongoing formal reviews of their competence, but there are, in fact, very few routine checks once a lawyer has qualified.
‘Legal regulators typically do not have systems or processes in place to identify or respond to concerns about competence. This is unusual and out of step with other professions.’
