The essential guide to conduct, compliance and competence, and the Legal Services Act
Blog
To reserve or not to reserve? That might not be the question
Moves are afoot to examine whether will-writing, probate and estate administration should be re-classified as a reserved activity and brought within the sole preserve of the legal profession. The review is conducted amidst a background of concerns about the quality of advice being received by consumers, particularly by those outside of the ‘legal’ framework.
Here come the Aussies
Around 18 months ago, Andrew Grech, the managing director of Slater & Gordon (S&G), gave a presentation to a seminar run by accountants Baker Tilly. He began by showing a slick corporate video outlining the history and achievements of S&G. Two things struck me from this. First was a cut-away of S&G’s headquarters, at the top of which was a huge ‘Slater & Gordon’ sign, the kind of self-promotion UK firms simply don’t indulge in (at the moment).
The voluntary ombudsman
This week marks the end of a consultation by the Legal Ombudsman (LeO) on its strategy for the next three years and its business plan for 2012-13. Among other things, it asked for initial responses on whether it should activate the power given to LeO in section 164 of the Legal Services Act to add a voluntary jurisdiction to its statutory one. The idea, says Elizabeth France, chair of LeO’s parent body, the Office for Legal Complaints, is to “fill gaps in access to free and fair redress for consumers of legal services”.
The storm is coming – and a good thing too
It’s all rather quiet on the alternative business structure front right now but don’t be fooled into thinking that nothing is happening. The Solicitors Regulation Authority has received around 50 stage-one applications for licensing in the first two weeks and is now starting to send out the main application form, which I understand is something of a whopper.
The drama taking place under our noses
The Law Society, in my experience, is rather good at making things complicated. For evidence, look no further than the new internal governance arrangements which received lukewarm support from the Legal Services Board shortly before Christmas. This may seem like a dry and esoteric issue to most. Virtually everyone, in fact, which is why pretty much nobody else seems to write about or comment on it. They are wrong.
Please sir, the dog ate my client-care letter
The new caring, sharing Solicitors Regulation Authority issued a caring, sharing press release shortly before Christmas. Entitled “Take care with vulnerable clients, SRA urges”, it admonished solicitors “to ensure they pay close attention to clients’ needs from the outset to make sure they deliver a proper standard of service”. It is one of the most patronising things I have seen from the SRA.
If you’re scared of OFR, perhaps you haven’t been listening
Samantha Barrass, executive director of supervision, risk and standards at the Solicitors Regulation Authority, responds to Michaela Hardwicke’s blog last week, The scary new world of OFR, to argue that the SRA has prepared the profession for the new regulatory environment and outlines how it expects to engage with firms in the future.
The scary new world of OFR
What do you get when you have 60 solicitors in a room discussing outcomes-focused regulation? You get concern, frustration, cynicism, lack of trust and an overwhelming desire for answers and solutions. There was not only a natural desire to understand and comply with the new regulatory regime but also a huge amount of frustration over the lack of guidance from the Solicitors Regulation Authority.
Is it time to split the Law Society and the SRA?
We may be in an era of outcomes-focused regulation, but nobody thought to tell those who drew up the deal between the Law Society and Solicitors Regulation Authority over their governance arrangements. To me it is further evidence that the arrangement by which the SRA is both independent and yet part of the Law Society is unlikely to stand the test of time
Why is marketing fine except when done by CMCs?
Introducing work to others is a common part of business life – just another cost that businesses incur in ‘selling’ their product. Law firms incur plenty of costs this way. So, asks Barbara Hamilton-Bruce, why is it different for claims management companies? Is their behaviour so abhorrent that the government should consider banning it?
Back to top >>
