*/
Regulation
The Legal Services Board (LSB) has “served its purpose” in kick-starting change and a sunset clause for its abolition should be enacted, says the Bar Standards Board.
In its response to the Ministry of Justice’s call for evidence on the legal services statutory framework, the BSB noted an “incorrect balance” between “LSB prescription and front line regulator discretion”. It wants the LSB role stripped from the Legal Services Act 2007 entirely, or a new standalone, simplified Act introduced.
Under the BSB blueprint, there would be no oversight regulator at all, but the Legal Ombudsman would be retained and its remit extended. Frontline regulators would be kept, regulatory objectives revised, the Regulators’ Code applied to all regulators, and the regulatory and representative functions separated further.
The Bar Council echoed the call for abolition and argued for a return of power to the approved regulators. Instead of a single, super regulator, a new College of Regulators should be established, it said, with a strong judicial presence, lay members and representatives from each regulator and professional body. The College would report to the Lord Chancellor.
“The public interest demands a clear and robust regulatory structure where all legal professionals are held to the highest of standards,” said Maura McGowan QC, Chairman of the Bar Council. “What we have instead,” she continued, “is an expensive oversight regulator which consistently seeks to impose its own vision of how legal services should be delivered and expects the legal profession to pick up the bill.”
“Our new model will bring regulation back into balance, handing back standard setting to the professional bodies with appropriate consumer input and at proportionate cost.”
But the Bar Council later withdrew its response in order to correct a mathematical error. Its calculation of the cost per barrister of the LSB was out by a factor of ten – it should have been £162 rather than the £1602 initially calculated.
The LSB, however, firmly dismissed the idea of a return to pure self-regulation by the professions alone. That would be a “driver of cost” and not in the “public, the consumer or the legal services sector’s best interests,” was its response.
“Our prescription does not turn the clock back,” said David Edmonds, LSB Chair. “The last five years have seen an unprecedented period of change… More could have been achieved, faster, with a simpler statutory framework and bolder, more market sensitive, more independent and less risk averse regulators.”
Under the BSB blueprint, there would be no oversight regulator at all, but the Legal Ombudsman would be retained and its remit extended. Frontline regulators would be kept, regulatory objectives revised, the Regulators’ Code applied to all regulators, and the regulatory and representative functions separated further.
The Bar Council echoed the call for abolition and argued for a return of power to the approved regulators. Instead of a single, super regulator, a new College of Regulators should be established, it said, with a strong judicial presence, lay members and representatives from each regulator and professional body. The College would report to the Lord Chancellor.
“The public interest demands a clear and robust regulatory structure where all legal professionals are held to the highest of standards,” said Maura McGowan QC, Chairman of the Bar Council. “What we have instead,” she continued, “is an expensive oversight regulator which consistently seeks to impose its own vision of how legal services should be delivered and expects the legal profession to pick up the bill.”
“Our new model will bring regulation back into balance, handing back standard setting to the professional bodies with appropriate consumer input and at proportionate cost.”
But the Bar Council later withdrew its response in order to correct a mathematical error. Its calculation of the cost per barrister of the LSB was out by a factor of ten – it should have been £162 rather than the £1602 initially calculated.
The LSB, however, firmly dismissed the idea of a return to pure self-regulation by the professions alone. That would be a “driver of cost” and not in the “public, the consumer or the legal services sector’s best interests,” was its response.
“Our prescription does not turn the clock back,” said David Edmonds, LSB Chair. “The last five years have seen an unprecedented period of change… More could have been achieved, faster, with a simpler statutory framework and bolder, more market sensitive, more independent and less risk averse regulators.”
Regulation
The Legal Services Board (LSB) has “served its purpose” in kick-starting change and a sunset clause for its abolition should be enacted, says the Bar Standards Board.
In its response to the Ministry of Justice’s call for evidence on the legal services statutory framework, the BSB noted an “incorrect balance” between “LSB prescription and front line regulator discretion”. It wants the LSB role stripped from the Legal Services Act 2007 entirely, or a new standalone, simplified Act introduced.
The forthcoming Race at the Bar report, and what the Bar Council is doing on the intersecting issues of race discrimination, equal opportunity and social mobility
An update by Rachel Cooper of Coram Chambers
There is still time to submit your entries for the LexisNexis Legal Awards 2022, with entries closing on Friday 26 November!
Leading alcohol testing provider AlphaBiolabs is now offering SmartMobile™, a new and highly innovative portable breath alcohol testing device with a built-in camera for personal identification, as well as optional GPS tracking capabilities.
Like it or loathe it, admin is a part of work and life but it can start to dominate and feel a burden. Here is a checklist of tips to help you feel calm about your inbox, from the virtual assistants who keep barristers organised
AlphaBiolabs enhances its SCRAM CAM® continuous alcohol monitoring service
Upskilling courts with a more forensic approach to domestic abuse, Professor Monckton-Smith talks to Laurence Cooper about her groundbreaking research, identifying patterns of coercive control and use of the homicide timeline
In a rare interview, Lord Pannick QC, the barrister at the centre of some of the most critical legal debates this country has seen, reflects on his own role in the theatre of law, celebrates the art of persuasion and discusses his upcoming Hamlyn Lectures. Interview by Anthony Inglese CB
Dropping hearings into Zoom is not the end game, writes Professor Richard Susskind OBE
Racial disparity and racism can impact experiences in the courtroom; Abimbola Johnson has some constructive solutions on how we can effectively challenge it
The forthcoming Race at the Bar report, and what the Bar Council is doing on the intersecting issues of race discrimination, equal opportunity and social mobility
