Foundations of ABS, CFAs and other key legal regimes under microscope of govt red tape exercise

Print This Post

By Legal Futures

1 June 2012


Red Tape Challenge: 170 regulations up for review

Many of the regulations underpinning the regulatory regime for legal services – including those designating the Solicitors Regulation Authority and Council for Licensed Conveyancers as alternative business structure (ABS) licensing authorities – are under the microscope as part of the government’s Red Tape Challenge (RTC), it has emerged.

The full list of 170 regulations which are open for review was published yesterday and also includes those around conditional fee agreements (CFA), damages-based agreements, legal expenses insurance, pro bono costs orders and land registration.

All of the key regulations that shape the regime for regulating claims management companies are up for grabs as well.

The RTC website seeks views on what users think should happen to these regulations. It asks specifically: can their purpose be achieved in a non-regulatory way (eg, through a voluntary code)? Can they be reformed, simplified or merged? Can their bureaucracy be reduced through better implementation? Can their enforcement be made less burdensome? Or should they be left as they are?

The RTC is a public consultation exercise through a website launched by Prime Minister David Cameron last year. The government has agreed to scrap or improve over 50% of the 1,500 regulations reviewed so far.

The scale of the exercise will come as a surprise to many, but to scrap some of these regulations would require fundamental policy shifts that the government has not flagged up to date.

As well as ABS designation, the Legal Services Act regulations on the list include those setting the limit that ABSs can be fined and the periods within which ABSs have to notify changes of ownership, allowing the Legal Services Board to levy its cost on the profession, and approving various regulators to undertake reserved legal activities.

The CFA regulations of both 2000 and 2005 – which in turn started and stopped the costs war – are included, as are the 2010 regulation which for the first time prescribed the limits of damages-based agreements (contingency fees).

The 1990 Insurance Companies (Legal Expenses Insurance) Regulations have long caused arguments over when a policyholder’s freedom to choose their solicitor kicks in, and campaigners may use its inclusion in the RTC exercise as a way of reopening this debate.

 

Tags: , , , , , , ,



Leave a comment

* Denotes required field

All comments will be moderated before posting. Please see our Terms and Conditions

Legal Futures Blog

Rating lawyers by their wins and losses – a good idea?

Robert Ambrogi

Lawyers will give you any number of reasons why their win-loss rates in court are not accurate reflections of their legal skills. Yet a growing number of companies are evaluating lawyers by this standard – compiling and analysing lawyers’ litigation track records to help consumers and businesses make more-informed hiring decisions. The shortcomings of evaluating lawyers by win rates are many. Not least of them is that so few cases ever make it to a win or loss. Of equal concern is that, in the nuances of law practice, it is not always obvious what constitutes a win or a loss.

February 22nd, 2017