header-logo header-logo

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

Lawyers’ regulators fail report card

Both the Bar and solicitors’ regulators have failed to meet required standards in their annual Legal Services Board (LSB) performance assessment.

The Solicitors Regulation Authority (SRA) was criticised for not publishing pass-rate data for the Solicitors Qualifying Examination, leaving aspiring solicitors in the dark about which training provider to choose. The LSB gave it until the autumn to produce this information. The LSB also criticised failures in its supervision of high-risk firms and protection of client funds—revealed after the closure of law firm Axiom Ince in 2023 with about £66m client money missing.

A spokesperson for the SRA said: ‘We will be discussing with our Board and agreeing an action plan.’

The Bar Standards Board (BSB) came in for criticism for being too slow to improve, despite restructuring in December 2024 as part of a ‘reform programme’ agreed with the LSB.

It also takes too long to investigate misconduct complaints against barristers, with only 67% of investigations—the benchmark is 80%—decided within 38 weeks. The LSB found that, while the quality of decisions was high, ‘the significant delays in reaching these decisions is of serious concern, not least because this is an issue that has been present for some years now’. Moreover, the LSB has asked the BSB to explain why it reduced its targets in September 2024 from 80% of investigations completed within 25 weeks to 80% within 38 weeks.

A BSB spokesperson said: ‘We have been in continual dialogue and have provided detailed evidence to respond to the challenges and the concerns the LSB have raised about the pace of change.’ The BSB is due to consult in the summer on changes to its enforcement regulations.

Craig Westwood, the LSB’s chief executive, said there were ‘some concerning shortfalls in regulatory performance, particularly from the two largest regulators’. 

Law Society chief executive Ian Jeffery said: ‘While the events leading to the collapse of Axiom Ince were happening, the SRA was focused on increasing its fining powers and proposing regulatory expansion. Instead, it should have been tackling the known risks from accumulator-style firms and ensuring its operations were joined up and laser focused on protecting consumers.’

Issue: 8111 / Categories: Legal News , Profession , 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