header-logo header-logo

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

SRA board agrees to CILEX regulation

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

NLJ Career Profile: Nikki Bowker, Devonshires

NLJ Career Profile: Nikki Bowker, Devonshires

Nikki Bowker, head of litigation and dispute resolution at Devonshires, on career resilience, diversity in law and channelling Elle Woods when the pressure is on

Ellisons—Sarah Osborne

Ellisons—Sarah Osborne

Leasehold enfranchisement specialist joins residential property team

DWF—Chris Air

DWF—Chris Air

Firm strengthens commercial team in Manchester with partner appointment

NEWS
Contract damages are usually assessed at the date of breach—but not always. Writing in NLJ this week, Ian Gascoigne, knowledge lawyer at LexisNexis, examines the growing body of cases where courts have allowed later events to reshape compensation
The Supreme Court has restored ‘doctrinal coherence’ to unfair prejudice litigation, writes Natalie Quinlivan, partner at Fieldfisher LLP, in this week' NLJ
The High Court’s refusal to recognise a prolific sperm donor as a child’s legal parent has highlighted the risks of informal conception arrangements, according to Liam Hurren, associate at Kingsley Napley, in NLJ this week
The Court of Appeal’s decision in Mazur may have settled questions around litigation supervision, but the profession should not simply ‘move on’, argues Jennifer Coupland, CEO of CILEX, in this week's NLJ
A simple phrase like ‘subject to references’ may not protect employers as much as they think. Writing in NLJ this week, Ian Smith, barrister and emeritus professor of employment law at UEA, analyses recent employment cases showing how conditional job offers can still create binding contracts
back-to-top-scroll