header-logo header-logo

Home Login E-newsletter About us
15 February 2013 / Antony Townsend
Issue: 7548 / Categories: Features , Profession
printer mail-detail

Right to reply

© Copyright LexisNexis 2026. All Rights Reserved.

Antony Townsend responds to criticism of the SRA’s approach to regulation

Ronnie Fox’s colourful perspective on the requirements of regulation paints a picture of a legal profession suffocating under a blanket of red tape and bureaucracy (“Under pressure”). The burden of regulation (not just from the Solicitors Regulation Authority (SRA)) is a real issue for legal services; but his caricature of outcomes-focused regulation (OFR) is neither accurate nor does it reflect the emerging evidence on the views of the profession.

Outcomes-focused regulation

OFR was launched on 6 October 2011. It is designed to replace traditional “tick-box” regulation with a new risk-based approach, allowing firms to achieve the right outcomes by delivering legal services in a way which best suits their individual clients and meets the public interest. The old Code of Conduct was 290 pages; the new one is 36 pages.

Ronnie suggests that the new approach leaves the profession to cope with uncertainty, and contrasts this with the supposed certainty of the old Code. It is true that OFR

If you are not a subscriber, subscribe now to read this content
If you are already a subscriber sign in
...or Register for two weeks' free access to subscriber content

MOVERS & SHAKERS

Read All
Clarke Willmott—Megan Bradbury

Clarke Willmott—Megan Bradbury

Corporate team welcomes paralegal in Southampton

Howard Kennedy—Paul Moran

Howard Kennedy—Paul Moran

London firm strengthens real estate team with partner appointment

Cripps—Radius Law

Cripps—Radius Law

Commercial and technology practice boosted by team hire

NEWS
Read All
NLJ this week: Tightening the screws on JCT terminations
The Supreme Court has delivered a decisive ruling on termination under the JCT Design & Build form. Writing in NLJ this week, Andrew Singer KC and Jonathan Ward, of Kings Chambers, analyse Providence Building Services v Hexagon Housing Association [2026] UKSC 1, which restores the first-instance decision and curbs contractors’ termination rights for repeated late payment
NLJ this week: Old rules, fresh warnings in employment law
Secondments, disciplinary procedures and appeal chaos all feature in a quartet of recent rulings. Writing in NLJ this week, Ian Smith, barrister and emeritus professor of employment law at UEA, examines how established principles are being tested in modern disputes
NLJ this week: The rise of the ‘ChatGPT client’ rattles the profession
The AI revolution is no longer a distant murmur—it’s at the client’s desk. Writing in NLJ this week, Peter Ambrose, CEO of The Partnership and Legalito, warns that the ‘AI chickens’ have ‘come home to roost’, transforming not just legal practice but the lawyer–client relationship itself
NLJ this week: Surrogacy children caught in succession gap
A High Court ruling involving the Longleat estate has exposed the fault line between modern family building and historic trust drafting. Writing in NLJ this week, Charlotte Coyle, director and family law expert at Freeths, examines Cator v Thynn [2026] EWHC 209 (Ch), where trustees sought approval to modernise trusts that retain pre-1970 definitions of ‘child’, ‘grandchild’ and ‘issue’
NLJ this week: Online safety law at a crossroads
Fresh proposals to criminalise ‘nudification’ apps, prioritise cyberflashing and non-consensual intimate images, and even ban under-16s from social media have reignited debate over whether the Online Safety Act 2023 (OSA 2023) is fit for purpose. Writing in NLJ this week, Alexander Brown, head of technology, media and telecommunications, and Alexandra Webster, managing associate, Simmons & Simmons, caution against reactive law-making that could undermine the Act’s ‘risk-based and outcomes-focused’ design
Copyright © 2026 LexisNexis
back-to-top-scroll