header-logo header-logo

04 July 2013
Issue: 7567 / Categories: Legal News
printer mail-detail

A war of words over fund

Regulators clash over pan-profession compensation fund

The Legal Services Board (LSB) consumer panel has hit back following the Law Society’s withering put-down of its proposal for a single, pan-profession compensation fund.

The consumer panel recommended the adoption of a “single financial protection regime” for all legal services providers, in its June report, Financial protection arrangements.

However, the proposal lacks sufficient “rigour” to be taken seriously, according to Des Hudson, chief executive of the Law Society.

In a highly critical statement this week, he said: “The panel fails to explain how a single scheme is achievable or how it would be administrated across multiple regulatory regimes.

“It also fails to provide sufficient evidence to substantiate its claim that it will be in consumers’ interests. It is quite surprising that the panel has not sought to explore these issues fully.” 

In a letter to Chris Kenny, LSB chief executive, Hudson expressed disappointment at the panel’s “superficial analysis” of available information.

However, LSB consumer panel chair, Elisabeth Davies hit back: “Our report makes clear that a single financial protection regime should be fully scoped in order to assess the costs and benefits—we have not recommended that such a scheme should be set up immediately without first understanding the potential impacts.

“The sorts of issues that the Law Society raises are ones we would expect to see considered in such a scoping exercise, but it would not have been appropriate for the panel to set out a detailed blueprint at this stage.”

Davies added that the panel had published a paper and commissioned a series of focus groups on the risks consumers should bear.

Issue: 7567 / 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
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
Recent allegations surrounding Peter Mandelson and Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor have reignited scrutiny of the ancient common law offence of misconduct in public office. Writing in NLJ this week, Simon Parsons, teaching fellow at Bath Spa University, asks whether their conduct could clear a notoriously high legal hurdle
A landmark ruling has reshaped child clinical negligence claims. Writing in NLJ this week, Jodi Newton, head of birth and paediatric negligence at Osbornes Law, explains how the Supreme Court in CCC v Sheffield Teaching Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust [2026] UKSC 5 has overturned Croke v Wiseman, ending the long-standing bar on children recovering ‘lost years’ earnings
A Court of Appeal ruling has drawn a firm line under party autonomy in arbitration. Writing in NLJ this week, Masood Ahmed, associate professor at the University of Leicester, analyses Gluck v Endzweig [2026] EWCA Civ 145, where a clause allowing arbitrators to amend an award ‘at any time’ was held incompatible with the Arbitration Act 1996
back-to-top-scroll