Justice Committee Chair Sir KC has written to the Lord Chancellor and Justice
Secretary KC outlining eight key
recommendations following the conclusion of the Committee’s work
examining the regulation of the legal professions.
The cross-party committee of MPs held two oral evidence sessions
in Parliament with professional bodies and regulators.
Representatives from the Bar Council, Bar Standards Board, CILEX
(Chartered Institute of Legal Executives), CILEx Regulation, The
Law Society, Solicitors Regulation Authority (SRA) and Legal
Services Board answered questions from MPs. The Committee also
invited written evidence for consideration as part of its
scrutiny.
The Chair of the Justice Committee, Sir MP (Con, Bromley & Chislehurst),
said: “It is clear from the written and oral
evidence the Committee received during the course of its work
into the regulation of the legal professions that there has been
a great deal of change since the Legal Services Act 2007 came
into force.
“The success of the legal services in England and
Wales should not deter the Government from examining the problems
with the current regulatory framework. Taking the
evidence in the round, the Committee has set out eight
key recommendations which we call on Ministers to consider
carefully and act on in good time. We conclude that it is now
right to carry out a review of the Legal Services Board.”
Summary of recommendations and conclusions
The Committee’s overall recommendations and conclusions based on
the evidence received are as follows:
• The Post Office Horizon Scandal will inevitably have damaged
the public’s perception of the legal professions. It is
imperative that the public can see that the regulatory framework
is robust and responsive enough to identify and punish egregious
breaches of regulatory standards.
• The Legal Services Act 2007 does not appear to provide a stable
long-term framework for the regulation of the legal professions.
The Committee is concerned by the amount of discord and
disfunction between the approved regulators, the regulatory
bodies and the LSB. We recognise that there is relatively little
appetite in the sector for far-reaching regulatory change,
however, it is undeniable that the case for re-examination of the
legislative framework underpinning regulation is growing stronger
and stronger.
• Considering the evidence as a whole, we conclude that it is now
right to carry out a review of the Legal Services Board and we
recommend this to the Government.
• The Committee would like to formally request that the
Government adds the role of the Chair of the Legal Services Board
to those which are subject to pre-appointment scrutiny by the
Justice Committee.
• The Committee supports a review of the internal governance
rules and would encourage the LSB to consider whether they should
be further clarified and strengthened.
• In regards to the merits of CILEX’s proposals, we are sceptical
of the argument that re-delegation and the proposed change to the
titles of CILEX lawyer, from Chartered Legal Executive to
Chartered Lawyer, would represent a simplification that would
help consumers.
• We would encourage the Law Society and the SRA to take a
proactive approach to the needs of in-house lawyers and to
demonstrate that they understand the challenges they face at
present.
• We appreciate and support the BSB’s prioritisation of
operational improvements. However, the BSB should consider
whether greater institutional independence could also help to
facilitate improvements in its effectiveness as a regulator.
ENDS
