header-logo header-logo

15 September 2016
Issue: 7714 / Categories: Legal News
printer mail-detail

Single regulator would focus on “activity not job title”

Professional bodies have urged caution on Legal Services Board (LSB) proposals for a single regulator accountable to Parliament.

In a paper published this week, “A vision for legislative reform of the regulatory framework for legal services in England and Wales”, the LSB proposes the abolition of all existing regulators, including itself. Instead, legal services as a whole would be regulated by a new, single body independent both of the professions and government.

Regulation would focus on activity rather than professional title, such as barrister or solicitor, with tighter regulation of specific high risk activities.

LSB Chairman Sir Michael Pitt said the existing arrangements were “confusing and complex”, and a single regulator for the whole legal services sector “would be best placed to deliver improvement, deregulate, save cost and act strategically”. The new regulation framework, he said, “should take a risk-based approach to regulation and focus on the activities undertaken by providers”.

Paul Philip, SRA Chief Executive, said: “We are pleased that the LSB has set out a strong case for regulation to be independent of both the government and professions. We are clear that making regulators independent—and accountable to parliament—will help build public trust and should also help speed up necessary reforms to make the sector more competitive.

“However, we should pause for thought when considering fundamental constitutional changes, such as regulating by activity or moving to one single regulator. Some consolidation across the regulators seems to be inevitable in the longer term, but we must avoid being distracted by rewriting the regulatory landscape to the extent that we blight much needed market reforms.”

Law Society president Robert Bourns branded the proposals “misconceived”, particularly “during a period of unprecedented change for Britain, following the vote to leave the EU” when uncertainty should be reduced, not increased.

“Embarking on regulatory change in this climate, especially when there is broad recognition that the current regulatory framework is working, is misconceived,” he added.

Issue: 7714 / Categories: Legal News
printer mail-details

MOVERS & SHAKERS

Hogan Lovells—Lisa Quelch

Hogan Lovells—Lisa Quelch

Partner hire strengthens global infrastructure and energy financing practice

Sherrards—Jan Kunstyr

Sherrards—Jan Kunstyr

Legal director bolsters international expertise in dispute resolution team

Muckle LLP—Stacey Brown

Muckle LLP—Stacey Brown

Corporate governance and company law specialist joins the team

NEWS

NOTICE UNDER THE TRUSTEE ACT 1925

HERBERT SMITH STAFF PENSION SCHEME (THE “SCHEME”)

NOTICE TO CREDITORS AND BENEFICIARIES UNDER SECTION 27 OF THE TRUSTEE ACT 1925
Law firm HFW is offering clients lawyers on call for dawn raids, sanctions issues and other regulatory emergencies
From gender-critical speech to notice periods and incapability dismissals, employment law continues to turn on fine distinctions. In his latest employment law brief for NLJ, Ian Smith of Norwich Law School reviews a cluster of recent decisions, led by Bailey v Stonewall, where the Court of Appeal clarified the limits of third-party liability under the Equality Act
Non-molestation orders are meant to be the frontline defence against domestic abuse, yet their enforcement often falls short. Writing in NLJ this week, Jeni Kavanagh, Jessica Mortimer and Oliver Kavanagh analyse why the criminalisation of breach has failed to deliver consistent protection
Assisted dying remains one of the most fraught fault lines in English law, where compassion and criminal liability sit uncomfortably close. Writing in NLJ this week, Julie Gowland and Barny Croft of Birketts examine how acts motivated by care—booking travel, completing paperwork, or offering emotional support—can still fall within the wide reach of the Suicide Act 1961
back-to-top-scroll