Professor Stephen Mayson, of the University College London (UCL) Centre for Ethics and Law, published the interim report of his independent review of legal services regulation this week, highlighting a wide range of potential reforms.
Prof Mayson described reservation as ‘anachronistic’, although he found the justification for reserved activities stronger in some cases, such as rights of audience and the conduct of litigation, than others, such as probate activity and the administration of oaths. While there ‘might remain a need’ for reservation for ‘certain public interest or high-risk legal activities’, he said it was ‘debateable’ whether the concept of reservation should continue.
Other key proposals were that all consumers of legal services be allowed to ask the Legal Ombudsman for help, and that those who provide legal services but do not hold a legal professional title should be given entry to regulation.
He thought the separation of regulatory from representative functions ‘unsatisfactory’, and said the current approach of regulation made ‘the desirable cooperation and collaboration between regulatory and representative functions problematic to achieve’.
‘In principle, regulators are the natural (and arguably better) guardians of consumers’ interests, by determining and enforcing the minimum or basic requirements for legal services,’ his report states.
‘Equally, the professional bodies are the natural (and arguably better) custodians of the higher standards and aspirations associated with a professional calling and vocation.’
He concludes that the shortcomings in the current regulatory framework ‘justify further reform’.
Matthew Hill, chief executive of the Legal Services Board, said: ‘Stephen’s report is a thorough and thoughtful analysis of a complex set of issues. It touches on a number of key areas that are of interest to us, and on which we look forward to engaging further in due course.’
Prof Mayson’s final report is due in January 2020.
