*/
“A rational approach” to regulation of the legal profession was called for by the President of the Supreme Court, Lord Neuberger of Abbotsbury, in a speech to the Bar Councils of Northern Ireland and Ireland on 20 June.
Hoping for regulation that will “become more realistic and less expensive”, he suggested a “single regulatory body for legal services with a number of discrete divisions: litigation, advocacy and advisory”.
This may “provide further impetus towards a de facto fusion of the legal profession” and although he would “regret” fusion, neither was he speaking against it. “A fearless, independent and outspoken group of specialist advocates can exist and thrive perfectly well within a larger, single legal profession,” he said. The Association of Trial Lawyers of America “is every bit as effective as the Bar Council in England”.
Lawyers “must ensure that their services are provided as cheaply as is consistent with their other duties – at least when they are acting for ordinary people whether or not they are relying on government funding”.
Lawyers and judges must always stand up for “an irreducible acceptable minimum of competence” and he had further advice for both. “If I ever had a mission statement for the Supreme Court, which I certainly will not, it would be to ensure that the law was as simple, as clear and as principled as possible.” Appellate advocates have a role here too: shorter written cases and more focused oral submissions.
In contrast, Bar Standards Board Chair Baroness Deech argued the case for specialist regulation in a speech to the International Legal Regulators Conference on 8 July: “A glance at the study of the financial market and its collapse, or at health care, shows only too clearly that the small expert regulator is now seen as doing a better job.”
By the time a super-regulator was set up, which “would immediately [require] three subcommittees – one for advocacy, one for litigation, one for transactions... the expertise and familiarity of the existing regulators would have been lost, with consequent risk to... international reputation,” she added.
This may “provide further impetus towards a de facto fusion of the legal profession” and although he would “regret” fusion, neither was he speaking against it. “A fearless, independent and outspoken group of specialist advocates can exist and thrive perfectly well within a larger, single legal profession,” he said. The Association of Trial Lawyers of America “is every bit as effective as the Bar Council in England”.
Lawyers “must ensure that their services are provided as cheaply as is consistent with their other duties – at least when they are acting for ordinary people whether or not they are relying on government funding”.
Lawyers and judges must always stand up for “an irreducible acceptable minimum of competence” and he had further advice for both. “If I ever had a mission statement for the Supreme Court, which I certainly will not, it would be to ensure that the law was as simple, as clear and as principled as possible.” Appellate advocates have a role here too: shorter written cases and more focused oral submissions.
In contrast, Bar Standards Board Chair Baroness Deech argued the case for specialist regulation in a speech to the International Legal Regulators Conference on 8 July: “A glance at the study of the financial market and its collapse, or at health care, shows only too clearly that the small expert regulator is now seen as doing a better job.”
By the time a super-regulator was set up, which “would immediately [require] three subcommittees – one for advocacy, one for litigation, one for transactions... the expertise and familiarity of the existing regulators would have been lost, with consequent risk to... international reputation,” she added.
“A rational approach” to regulation of the legal profession was called for by the President of the Supreme Court, Lord Neuberger of Abbotsbury, in a speech to the Bar Councils of Northern Ireland and Ireland on 20 June.
Hoping for regulation that will “become more realistic and less expensive”, he suggested a “single regulatory body for legal services with a number of discrete divisions: litigation, advocacy and advisory”.
The age of criminal responsibility, extreme weather and conflict resolution – plus, new protocol for reporting bullying at the Bar
By David Green
Mário Barroso, Head of R&D and Method Development at AlphaBiolabs, examines the forensic science underpinning hair drug testing, its evidential scope and limitations, and why it remains the gold standard for evidencing patterns of drug use in family proceedings
Unlocking your aged debt to fund your tax in one easy step. By Philip N Bristow
Clement Cowley, Partner at The Penny Group, discusses the upcoming changes to pensions and Inheritance Tax and the potential impact on your financial future
Save the Children UK is the latest charity to benefit from a £500 donation from AlphaBiolabs via the company’s Giving Back initiative
Can reflective practice – a staple in other professions – meaningfully support the Bar? Emma Cross reports back from last year’s pilot
Does your constitution comply? The Harman Report provides impetus to update yours – and the sooner the better. Scott Leonard explains how
A decade of reviews and research has disrupted accepted thinking in the search for causality. Suicides following abuse have overtaken domestic homicides. Is the law keeping up? Professor Susan Edwards KC (Hon) examines recent cases and the obstacles to successful prosecution
Why every major sporting event needs an anti-corruption policy. By Louis Weston
At least not that way, says Richard Paige
