*/
The Bar’s regulatory body has said it would be “wrong” for it to permit barristers to enter into Alternative Business Structures (“ABS”) without further research.
Responding to the Legal Services Board’s (“LSB”) discussion paper on developing a regulatory regime for ABS, Wider access, better value, strong protection, the Bar Standards Board (“BSB”) called for more evidence about what sort of market is likely to be created, and its impact on the consumers of legal services.
The BSB is concerned that changes to the business structures through which barristers provide services could undermine regulatory objectives. It has commissioned independent research into the eff ects of allowing barristers to practise as ABS managers, and will make its decision on regulation in November.
In a sharp retort, however, a LSB spokesperson said: “It’s no longer the time to continue having sterile debates about ‘if ’. “Debate around the need to remove the anti-competitive elements of the Bar’s regulatory regime has been ongoing for at least a decade. We will continue to work directly with approved regulators, with the numerous lawyers who speak to us directly, and with consumers, on the questions surrounding regulatory reform, including the removal of unnecessary restrictions on the provision of legal services.”
The BSB is concerned that changes to the business structures through which barristers provide services could undermine regulatory objectives. It has commissioned independent research into the eff ects of allowing barristers to practise as ABS managers, and will make its decision on regulation in November.
In a sharp retort, however, a LSB spokesperson said: “It’s no longer the time to continue having sterile debates about ‘if ’. “Debate around the need to remove the anti-competitive elements of the Bar’s regulatory regime has been ongoing for at least a decade. We will continue to work directly with approved regulators, with the numerous lawyers who speak to us directly, and with consumers, on the questions surrounding regulatory reform, including the removal of unnecessary restrictions on the provision of legal services.”
The Bar’s regulatory body has said it would be “wrong” for it to permit barristers to enter into Alternative Business Structures (“ABS”) without further research.
Responding to the Legal Services Board’s (“LSB”) discussion paper on developing a regulatory regime for ABS, Wider access, better value, strong protection, the Bar Standards Board (“BSB”) called for more evidence about what sort of market is likely to be created, and its impact on the consumers of legal services.
Politically neutral, yet loud and clear – why standing on the sidelines is not an option
With the property market witnessing significant changes since the beginning of the pandemic, Fleet Street Wealth’s Managing Director Julian Morgan considers the future of the home, the second home and the office
In partnership with the Bar Council, LexisNexis is offering up to 60% off its extensive webinar offering.
Chambers is expanding its team.
Making a move from the Bar to a career in governance: Maria Brookes outlines three good reasons to switch and how to do it
Inés Rivera explains how speech recognition can help barristers create accurate documentation faster
The barrister-author talks to Chris Henley QC about the parallels between farming and farmers, and the law and barristers, and the dilemmas of combining young children with continued practice at the Bar
Permitting vulnerable people to be heard is a difficult role, but I have so much joy from it. Mary Prior QC shares life lessons with Aadhithya Anbahan
If the Bar is complacent on the issue of race, then we will perpetuate the same racial inequities that continue to pervade our society, writes Professor Leslie Thomas QC
Tim Prudhoe's lessons learnt: as the scope increases for working overseas, here's some advice on how to build the foundations for an international practice (and not upset the local Bar)
Politically neutral, yet loud and clear why standing on the sidelines is not an option
