Inappropriate interference and an inferior and expensive complaints system may undermine the benefits of the Legal Services Bill, says Stephen Hockman QC
At precisely 3.32pm on 6 December 2006 the Secretary of State for Constitutional Affairs and Lord Chancellor, Lord Falconer of Thoroton, rose in the House of Lords and uttered these historic words: “My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill be now read a second time.” Thus the Legal Services Bill, which everyone agrees has the potential to revolutionise the delivery of legal services in this country, began its substantive passage through Parliament.
The controversy to which these proposals have given rise can be judged from the fact that in a letter to The Guardian the redoubtable and distinguished solicitor—and lifelong Labour supporter—Geoffrey Bindman suggested that the only proper course was for the government to withdraw the Bill in its entirety.
Since the Report of the Review of the Regulatory Framework for Legal Services in England and Wales, undertaken by Sir David Clementi (the Clementi report), was published in
.tmb-mov69x69.jpg?sfvrsn=28793f10_1)
