*/
Profession
Ministers have embarked on a wholesale review of legal services regulation, following concerns over its complexity and the “unnecessary burdens” it places on the sector.
In a written statement to the House of Commons on 3 June, Justice Minister Helen Grant announced that the review would consider how to simplify the framework, whilst retaining “appropriate regulatory oversight”. The full breadth of the legislative framework is in scope, which is underpinned by at least 10 pieces of primary legislation and over 30 statutory instruments.
The Ministry wants to hear comments on the interaction between the legislative framework and the detailed rules and regulations of the approved regulators, licensing authorities and the Legal Services Board (LSB) and Office for Legal Complaints, “although we recognise that these are not owned by the Ministry of Justice,” Grant said.
A call for evidence kicks off the review. Ministers will decide next steps following an analysis of views and is seeking feedback from all involved in regulating, monitoring and providing legal services (email: legalservicesreview@justice.gsi.gov.uk).
Currently, the supra regulator, the LSB, oversees all eight frontline legal regulators in England and Wales, and the Office for Legal Complaints. It is independent of government and the legal profession and came into being in 2010, created by the Legal Services Act 2007. There have been tensions and complaints over duplication in the regulatory state for some time. At a Justice Committee evidence session into the work of the LSB in March, its Chairman David Edmonds recommended that Parliament should set up a single body, absorbing all eight frontline regulators.
Meanwhile, the Bar Standards Board (BSB) has passed its first performance review in each category. Edmonds praised the BSB’s “welcome frankness” in its self-assessment and said its challenging work programme showed “a high, but necessary, level of ambition”. He warned, however, that the proposed timescale was “tight” and would be dependent on “significant leadership being shown by the Board of the BSB coupled with strong management by the executive”. The BSB must do more, he added, to embed the regulatory standards and an outcomes focused regulatory approach into its day-to-day operations.
In a written statement to the House of Commons on 3 June, Justice Minister Helen Grant announced that the review would consider how to simplify the framework, whilst retaining “appropriate regulatory oversight”. The full breadth of the legislative framework is in scope, which is underpinned by at least 10 pieces of primary legislation and over 30 statutory instruments.
The Ministry wants to hear comments on the interaction between the legislative framework and the detailed rules and regulations of the approved regulators, licensing authorities and the Legal Services Board (LSB) and Office for Legal Complaints, “although we recognise that these are not owned by the Ministry of Justice,” Grant said.
A call for evidence kicks off the review. Ministers will decide next steps following an analysis of views and is seeking feedback from all involved in regulating, monitoring and providing legal services (email: legalservicesreview@justice.gsi.gov.uk).
Currently, the supra regulator, the LSB, oversees all eight frontline legal regulators in England and Wales, and the Office for Legal Complaints. It is independent of government and the legal profession and came into being in 2010, created by the Legal Services Act 2007. There have been tensions and complaints over duplication in the regulatory state for some time. At a Justice Committee evidence session into the work of the LSB in March, its Chairman David Edmonds recommended that Parliament should set up a single body, absorbing all eight frontline regulators.
Meanwhile, the Bar Standards Board (BSB) has passed its first performance review in each category. Edmonds praised the BSB’s “welcome frankness” in its self-assessment and said its challenging work programme showed “a high, but necessary, level of ambition”. He warned, however, that the proposed timescale was “tight” and would be dependent on “significant leadership being shown by the Board of the BSB coupled with strong management by the executive”. The BSB must do more, he added, to embed the regulatory standards and an outcomes focused regulatory approach into its day-to-day operations.
Profession
Ministers have embarked on a wholesale review of legal services regulation, following concerns over its complexity and the “unnecessary burdens” it places on the sector.
Chair of the Bar reports back
Marie Law, Director of Toxicology at AlphaBiolabs
A £500 donation from AlphaBiolabs has been made to the leading UK charity tackling international parental child abduction and the movement of children across international borders
Marie Law, Director of Toxicology at AlphaBiolabs, outlines the drug and alcohol testing options available for family law professionals, and how a new, free guide can help identify the most appropriate testing method for each specific case
By Louise Crush of Westgate Wealth Management
Marie Law, Director of Toxicology at AlphaBiolabs, examines the latest ONS data on drug misuse and its implications for toxicology testing in family law cases
A career shaped by advocacy beyond her practice, and the realities of living with an invisible disability – Dr Natasha Shotunde, Black Barristers’ Network Co-Founder and its Chair for seven years, reflects on a decade at the Bar
The odds of success are as unforgiving as ever, but ambition clearly isn’t in short supply. David Wurtzel’s annual deep‑dive into the competition cohort shows who’s entering, who’s thriving and the trends that will define the next wave
Where to start and where to find help? Monisha Shah, Chair of the King’s Counsel Selection Panel, provides an overview of the silk selection process, debunking some myths along the way
Do chatbot providers owe a duty of care for negligent misstatements? Jasper Wong suggests that the principles applicable to humans should apply equally to machines
There is no typical day in the life as a Supreme Court judicial assistant, says Josephine Gillingwater, and that’s what makes the role so enjoyably diverse
