Tribunal judges call for regulatory controls over non-lawyer employment advisers

Print This Post

By Legal Futures

2 December 2011


Employment dispute: judges call for level playing field

The Legal Ombudsman should have jurisdiction over non-lawyer employment advisers as part of work to improve consumer protection in the field, employment judges have suggested.

Responding to the Legal Services Board’s consultation paper Enhancing consumer protection, reducing regulatory restrictions, the Judiciary of the Employment Tribunals said its primary concern was the lack of consistency in the redress available to claimants given the wide range of people – most of whom are not regulated – who act as advocates before tribunals.

The judges complained that claimants, the judiciary and the effective operation of the Tribunal Service are all “impacted upon by poor-quality advice, preparation, representation and advocacy”.

Tags: , , , ,



Legal Futures Blog

Know your client checks – A lesson from BHS

Paul-Bennett for Legal Futures

As you will be aware, it is a legal requirement for advisory firms to carry out ‘know your client’ checks. The purpose of doing so is to confirm your client’s identity and to seek to provide protection in respect of anti-money laundering (AML) and terrorist financing laws. The BHS experience before the House of Commons’ work and pensions committee and business, innovation and skills committee shows that firms need to think beyond AML obligations.

September 29th, 2016