header-logo header-logo

02 April 2025
Issue: 8111 / Categories: Legal News , Regulatory , Legal services
printer mail-detail

Could regulators do more to boost access to justice?

One single regulator for all legal services, regulation of all paralegals and a duty on regulators to ‘creatively’ tackle access to justice barriers are among a raft of proposals being considered by the Legal Services Board (LSB).

The report, ‘Regulatory leadership on access to justice’, compiled by Nottingham Law School and published this week by the Legal Services Consumer Panel, contains 17 recommendations in total. The panel’s role is to advise the LSB.

The 154-page report cites a range of barriers to justice, including the closure of legal advice centres, legal aid deserts and lack of public awareness about legal rights. It urges the LSB and frontline regulators to revise codes of conduct to place more emphasis on access to justice and to support ‘tailored and strategic’ initiatives to educate the public on legal matters.

It suggests the LSB take a lead role in fostering collaboration between charities, government and other regulators to address systemic causes of injustice, and create an ‘innovation sandbox’ to test ideas. The LSB should also investigate mandatory regulation of paralegals to create more ‘trusted intermediaries’ to help the public, it says.

Dr Liz Curran, associate professor at Nottingham Law School, said: ‘A creative, problem-solving, and evidence-based approach is crucial.

‘This research report demonstrates what can be achieved and how.’

Long-term, the LSB could become the only regulator for legal services and be a grant-awarding body, the report says, although it anticipates ‘pushback’ from existing regulators.

Other suggestions include collaboration between frontline regulators and the insurance sector to investigate whether legal expenses insurance can be expanded, and to review professional indemnity cover.

The report also proposes regulators offer continuing professional development (CPD) options in access to justice work, and considers changes to pricing and income generation models for lawyers, which would require ‘some legislative amendment as well as cultural change’.

Issue: 8111 / Categories: Legal News , Regulatory , Legal services
printer mail-details

MOVERS & SHAKERS

Freeths—Rachel Crosier

Freeths—Rachel Crosier

Projects and rail practices strengthened by director hire in London

DWF—Stephen Hickling

DWF—Stephen Hickling

Real estate team in Birmingham welcomes back returning partner

Ward Hadaway—44 appointments

Ward Hadaway—44 appointments

Firm invests in national growth with 44 appointments across five offices

NEWS
The Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 transformed criminal justice. Writing in NLJ this week, Ed Cape of UWE and Matthew Hardcastle and Sandra Paul of Kingsley Napley trace its ‘seismic impact’
Operational resilience is no longer optional. Writing in NLJ this week, Emma Radmore and Michael Lewis of Womble Bond Dickinson explain how UK regulators expect firms to identify ‘important business services’ that could cause ‘intolerable levels of harm’ if disrupted
Criminal juries may be convicting—or acquitting—on a misunderstanding. Writing in NLJ this week Paul McKeown, Adrian Keane and Sally Stares of The City Law School and LSE report troubling survey findings on the meaning of ‘sure’
The Serious Fraud Office (SFO) has narrowly preserved a key weapon in its anti-corruption arsenal. In this week's NLJ, Jonathan Fisher KC of Red Lion Chambers examines Guralp Systems Ltd v SFO, in which the High Court ruled that a deferred prosecution agreement (DPA) remained in force despite the company’s failure to disgorge £2m by the stated deadline
As the drip-feed of Epstein disclosures fuels ‘collateral damage’, the rush to cry misconduct in public office may be premature. Writing in NLJ this week, David Locke of Hill Dickinson warns that the offence is no catch-all for political embarrassment. It demands a ‘grave departure’ from proper standards, an ‘abuse of the public’s trust’ and conduct ‘sufficiently serious to warrant criminal punishment’
back-to-top-scroll