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

Clarke Willmott—Declan Goodwin & Elinor Owen

Clarke Willmott—Declan Goodwin & Elinor Owen

Corporate and commercial teams in Cardiff boosted by dual partner hire

Hill Dickinson—Joz Coetzer & Marc Naidoo

Hill Dickinson—Joz Coetzer & Marc Naidoo

London hires to lead UK launch of international finance team

Switalskis—11 promotions

Switalskis—11 promotions

Firm marks start of year with firmwide promotions round

NEWS
Regulators differed in the clarity and consistency of their post-Mazur advice and guidance, according to an interim report by the Legal Services Board (LSB)
The dangers of uncritical artificial intelligence (AI) use in legal practice are no longer hypothetical. In this week's NLJ, Dr Charanjit Singh of Holborn Chambers examines cases where lawyers relied on ‘hallucinated’ citations — entirely fictitious authorities generated by AI tools
The next generation is inheriting more than assets—it is inheriting complexity. Writing in NLJ this week, experts from Penningtons Manches Cooper chart how global mobility, blended families and evolving values are reshaping private wealth advice
Artificial intelligence (AI) is rapidly transforming sport, from recruitment and training to officiating and fan engagement. Writing in NLJ this week, Professor Dr Ian Blackshaw of Valloni Attorneys at Law explains how AI now influences everything from injury prevention to tactical decisions, with clubs using tools such as ‘TacticAI’ to gain competitive edges
The Solicitors Act 1974 may still underpin legal regulation, but its age is increasingly showing. Writing in NLJ this week, Victoria Morrison-Hughes of the Association of Costs Lawyers argues that the Act is ‘out of step with modern consumer law’ and actively deters fairness
back-to-top-scroll