header-logo header-logo

SRA board agrees to CILEX regulation

03 July 2024
Issue: 8078 / Categories: Legal News , Profession , Regulatory
printer mail-detail

The Solicitors Regulation Authority (SRA) board has approved controversial plans for the SRA to take over the regulation of legal executives

The board announced its decision this week to expand its regulatory pool to include authorised and non-authorised members of the Chartered Institute of Legal Executives (CILEX).

CILEX members are currently regulated by CILEx Regulation—which opposes the switch on grounds it will diminish protection and confuse consumers.

However, CILEX has been in discussion with the SRA about potentially switching regulators since 2022.

Anna Bradley, SRA chair, said: ‘The key question for us has always been—is this in the public interest?

‘All the evidence shows that consistency and relative simplicity in regulation matters to the users of legal service. This change would result in a simpler system, with more consistent levels of protection for consumers. There will also be efficiency benefits.’

According to the SRA, both CILEX members and solicitors would retain their distinct identities and there would be no financial cross subsidy between the two sides of the profession.

However, the Law Society is staunchly opposed to the move. Its chief executive, Ian Jeffery, said: ‘The SRA requires the Law Society’s approval for changes to the corporate objects of SRA Limited in order to be able to take on the regulation of CILEX members.

‘The SRA has created the impression that this is no more than an administrative issue to be resolved. Instead, the Law Society has consistently said our consent cannot be assumed. This is a matter for the Law Society’s Council to decide at the appropriate time when any proposals are made and supported by a persuasive case for change.

‘We are concerned that the redelegation of CILEX’s regulatory functions to the SRA could adversely affect the SRA’s ability to meet its duty to regulate the solicitor profession in a way that supports and promotes the regulatory objectives. This is of particular concern in light of the collapses of Axiom Ince, Metamorph, Kingly and the SSB Group.’

The super-regulator, the Legal Services Board, would have to give approval before any change could take place.

Issue: 8078 / Categories: Legal News , Profession , Regulatory
printer mail-details

MOVERS & SHAKERS

Carey Olsen—Kim Paiva

Carey Olsen—Kim Paiva

Group partner joins Guernsey banking and finance practice

Morgan Lewis—Kat Gibson

Morgan Lewis—Kat Gibson

London labour and employment team announces partner hire

Foot Anstey McKees—Chris Milligan & Michael Kelly

Foot Anstey McKees—Chris Milligan & Michael Kelly

Double partner appointment marks Belfast expansion

NEWS
The Ministry of Justice (MoJ) has not done enough to protect the future sustainability of the legal aid market, MPs have warned
Writing in NLJ this week, NLJ columnist Dominic Regan surveys a landscape marked by leapfrog appeals, costs skirmishes and notable retirements. With an appeal in Mazur due to be heard next month, Regan notes that uncertainties remain over who will intervene, and hopes for the involvement of the Lady Chief Justice and the Master of the Rolls in deciding the all-important outcome
After the Southport murders and the misinformation that followed, contempt of court law has come under intense scrutiny. In this week's NLJ, Lawrence McNamara and Lauren Schaefer of the Law Commission unpack proposals aimed at restoring clarity without sacrificing fair trial rights
The latest Home Office figures confirm that stop and search remains both controversial and diminished. Writing in NLJ this week, Neil Parpworth of De Montfort University analyses data showing historically low use of s 1 PACE powers, with drugs searches dominating what remains
Boris Johnson’s 2019 attempt to shut down Parliament remains a constitutional cautionary tale. The move, framed as a routine exercise of the royal prerogative, was in truth an extraordinary effort to sideline Parliament at the height of the Brexit crisis. Writing in NLJ this week, Professor Graham Zellick KC dissects how prorogation was wrongly assumed to be beyond judicial scrutiny, only for the Supreme Court to intervene unanimously
back-to-top-scroll