*/
Regulation
Chambers and sole practitioners will be “risk-rated” under a Bar Standards Board supervision scheme from January, which will underpin the new Handbook.
Those identified as “high risk” will be supported by the regulator to reduce the likelihood of serious problems occurring.
“Well-run chambers, which set out and comply with clear policies on matters such as complaints handling and pupillage training, will gain a low risk rating and will have little contact with the BSB,” announced the regulator, so that resources are concentrated on “those who need it most”.
Chambers will be assessed against potential risks of ineffective or dishonest governance; poor client service; insufficient consideration of equality and diversity; inadequate or unfair pupillage or training; and incompetent or dishonest financial management.
The new supervision arrangements were introduced following a consultation earlier this year and replace the monitoring system implemented in 2010, in which chambers were contacted to verify compliance in key areas.
Announcing the new scheme, the Bar Standards Board’s Head of Quality, Oliver Hanmer, said: “We all know that prevention is better than cure. This new approach is about smarter regulation for the Bar and better protection for the public. Working with us to prevent potential risks materialising will mean minimising the amount of supervision chambers receive, and a more targeted use of resources on our part.”
Chambers will receive an impact audit survey next spring to identify the impact that any potential breach of the regulatory rules would have on the public and consumers. Most chambers will then have to complete a Supervision Return form – detailing how effectively potential risks are being managed to help the BSB determine the likelihood of them materialising.
Matthew Nicklin QC, Chair of the BSB’s Standards Committee, assured Bar Conference delegates that this would not be a “Big Brother” style of monitoring (see p22).
“Well-run chambers, which set out and comply with clear policies on matters such as complaints handling and pupillage training, will gain a low risk rating and will have little contact with the BSB,” announced the regulator, so that resources are concentrated on “those who need it most”.
Chambers will be assessed against potential risks of ineffective or dishonest governance; poor client service; insufficient consideration of equality and diversity; inadequate or unfair pupillage or training; and incompetent or dishonest financial management.
The new supervision arrangements were introduced following a consultation earlier this year and replace the monitoring system implemented in 2010, in which chambers were contacted to verify compliance in key areas.
Announcing the new scheme, the Bar Standards Board’s Head of Quality, Oliver Hanmer, said: “We all know that prevention is better than cure. This new approach is about smarter regulation for the Bar and better protection for the public. Working with us to prevent potential risks materialising will mean minimising the amount of supervision chambers receive, and a more targeted use of resources on our part.”
Chambers will receive an impact audit survey next spring to identify the impact that any potential breach of the regulatory rules would have on the public and consumers. Most chambers will then have to complete a Supervision Return form – detailing how effectively potential risks are being managed to help the BSB determine the likelihood of them materialising.
Matthew Nicklin QC, Chair of the BSB’s Standards Committee, assured Bar Conference delegates that this would not be a “Big Brother” style of monitoring (see p22).
Regulation
Chambers and sole practitioners will be “risk-rated” under a Bar Standards Board supervision scheme from January, which will underpin the new Handbook.
Those identified as “high risk” will be supported by the regulator to reduce the likelihood of serious problems occurring.
Update from the Chair of the Bar
By Clement Cowley, Partner at The Penny Group
Modernising communication and collaboration at a leading Chancery set. A Zexi case study
How to build profile without compromising professional duties. By Naumaan Farooq, Co-Founder of Inked PR
Marie Law, Director of Toxicology at AlphaBiolabs, examines the role of cut-off levels, and the wider range of factors that must be considered when interpreting results for family court proceedings
Endometriosis Awareness North, a charity raising awareness of endometriosis and supporting those affected across the North of England, has received a £500 boost from AlphaBiolabs via the company’s Giving Back initiative
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
The case against judge-only justice – and why efficiency is not enough. By Professor Leslie Thomas KC
Heritage as an anchor and a compass, finding our common humanity and embracing the power of the outsider – Melina Antoniadis’s lessons learnt
Seeing the full picture – Baljit Ubhey OBE outlines the CPS action plan to tackle violence against women and girls, offering insights directly relevant to courtroom practice
Lauren Fullerton examines the how, what and why of setting up a second chambers base
