Legal regulators and the Legal Services Board should focus on quality of service as much as price, according to the Legal Services Consumer Panel. Although regulators have pursued price transparency for consumers, ‘price transparency without information on quality could mislead consumers to think that higher-priced services mean better quality,’ the Panel said this week. Sarah Chambers, chair of the Panel, said: ‘In-depth work must be done at regulatory level to ascertain which quality indicators are meaningful, how information should be collated, and crucially, how information should be presented to consumers.’
17 October 2018
Time to focus on quality not price
MOVERS & SHAKERS
Freeths—Rachel Crosier
Projects and rail practices strengthened by director hire in London
DWF—Stephen Hickling
Real estate team in Birmingham welcomes back returning partner
Ward Hadaway—44 appointments
Firm invests in national growth with 44 appointments across five offices
NEWS
The Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 transformed criminal justice. Writing in NLJ this week, Ed Cape of UWE and Matthew Hardcastle and Sandra Paul of Kingsley Napley trace its ‘seismic impact’
Operational resilience is no longer optional. Writing in NLJ this week, Emma Radmore and Michael Lewis of Womble Bond Dickinson explain how UK regulators expect firms to identify ‘important business services’ that could cause ‘intolerable levels of harm’ if disrupted
Criminal juries may be convicting—or acquitting—on a misunderstanding. Writing in NLJ this week Paul McKeown, Adrian Keane and Sally Stares of The City Law School and LSE report troubling survey findings on the meaning of ‘sure’
The Serious Fraud Office (SFO) has narrowly preserved a key weapon in its anti-corruption arsenal. In this week's NLJ, Jonathan Fisher KC of Red Lion Chambers examines Guralp Systems Ltd v SFO, in which the High Court ruled that a deferred prosecution agreement (DPA) remained in force despite the company’s failure to disgorge £2m by the stated deadline
As the drip-feed of Epstein disclosures fuels ‘collateral damage’, the rush to cry misconduct in public office may be premature. Writing in NLJ this week, David Locke of Hill Dickinson warns that the offence is no catch-all for political embarrassment. It demands a ‘grave departure’ from proper standards, an ‘abuse of the public’s trust’ and conduct ‘sufficiently serious to warrant criminal punishment’
Copyright © 2026 LexisNexis
