header-logo header-logo

Single regulator would focus on “activity not job title”

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

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

NLJ career profile: Liz McGrath KC

NLJ career profile: Liz McGrath KC

A good book, a glass of chilled Albarino, and being creative for pleasure help Liz McGrath balance the rigours of complex bundles and being Head of Chambers

Burges Salmon—Matthew Hancock-Jones

Burges Salmon—Matthew Hancock-Jones

Firm welcomes director in its financial services financial regulatory team

Gateley Legal—Sam Meiklejohn

Gateley Legal—Sam Meiklejohn

Partner appointment in firm’s equity capital markets team

NEWS

Walkers and runners will take in some of London’s finest views at the 16th annual charity event

Law school partners with charity to give free assistance to litigants in need

Could the Labour government usher in a new era for digital assets, ask Keith Oliver, head of international, and Amalia Neenan FitzGerald, associate, Peters & Peters, in this week’s NLJ

An extra bit is being added to case citations to show the pecking order of the judges concerned. Former district judge Stephen Gold has the details, in his ‘Civil way’ column in this week’s NLJ

The Labour government’s position on alternative dispute resolution (ADR) is not yet clear

back-to-top-scroll