header-logo header-logo

15 September 2016
Issue: 7714 / Categories: Legal News
printer mail-detail

Single regulator would focus on “activity not job title”

Professional bodies have urged caution on Legal Services Board (LSB) proposals for a single regulator accountable to Parliament.

In a paper published this week, “A vision for legislative reform of the regulatory framework for legal services in England and Wales”, the LSB proposes the abolition of all existing regulators, including itself. Instead, legal services as a whole would be regulated by a new, single body independent both of the professions and government.

Regulation would focus on activity rather than professional title, such as barrister or solicitor, with tighter regulation of specific high risk activities.

LSB Chairman Sir Michael Pitt said the existing arrangements were “confusing and complex”, and a single regulator for the whole legal services sector “would be best placed to deliver improvement, deregulate, save cost and act strategically”. The new regulation framework, he said, “should take a risk-based approach to regulation and focus on the activities undertaken by providers”.

Paul Philip, SRA Chief Executive, said: “We are pleased that the LSB has set out a strong case for regulation to be independent of both the government and professions. We are clear that making regulators independent—and accountable to parliament—will help build public trust and should also help speed up necessary reforms to make the sector more competitive.

“However, we should pause for thought when considering fundamental constitutional changes, such as regulating by activity or moving to one single regulator. Some consolidation across the regulators seems to be inevitable in the longer term, but we must avoid being distracted by rewriting the regulatory landscape to the extent that we blight much needed market reforms.”

Law Society president Robert Bourns branded the proposals “misconceived”, particularly “during a period of unprecedented change for Britain, following the vote to leave the EU” when uncertainty should be reduced, not increased.

“Embarking on regulatory change in this climate, especially when there is broad recognition that the current regulatory framework is working, is misconceived,” he added.

Issue: 7714 / Categories: Legal News
printer mail-details

MOVERS & SHAKERS

Cripps—Radius Law

Cripps—Radius Law

Commercial and technology practice boosted by team hire

Switalskis—Grimsby

Switalskis—Grimsby

Firm expands with new Grimsby office to serve North East Lincolnshire

Slater Heelis—Will Newman & Lucy Spilsbury

Slater Heelis—Will Newman & Lucy Spilsbury

Property team boosted by two solicitor appointments

NEWS
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
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
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
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’
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
back-to-top-scroll