The Bar Standards Board has rubbished a suggestion from the Solicitors Regulation Authority that it changed a rule to support the Bar Council in its clash with the government over legal aid.
The Bar Standards Board has moved to close a “regulatory anomaly” that would have temporarily seen barristers forced to accept the controversial new legal aid rates set by the government for very high-cost cases (VHCCs).
The Bar Council has accepted that breached the independence of the Bar Standards Board by interfering in controversial changes to the cab-rank rule, it emerged today. The Legal Services Board has however agreed to an informal resolution, having considered a censure.
The Legal Services Board wants to impose lay chairs on the frontline regulators so that they will “do more of what [it] wants”, the Bar Council has claimed. The Bar Standards Board and Law Society have also come out strongly against the proposal.
Barristers are to get a taste of solicitors’ regulatory medicine from January with the launch of a new supervision scheme that will assess how effectively chambers and sole practitioners are managing potential risks such as ineffective governance and inadequate pupillage training.
he barristers seeking to have the Quality Assurance Scheme for Advocates (QASA) declared unlawful have lost a bid to reduce their costs exposure. Mr Justice Bean refused to amend the protective costs order granted earlier this month by Mr Justice Ouseley.
Discontent is building among the frontline regulators over a Legal Services Board proposal that they should change their internal governance rules to require the chairs of regulatory boards to be lay and not legal professionals.
The ex-City lawyer chairman of the Solicitors Regulation Authority has questioned the recruitment methods of City law firms in making university students decide to become commercial lawyers so early on in their legal careers.
A High Court judgment that refused three applications for judicial review of barristers’ disciplinary decisions is to be appealed, after the court found that anomalies in tribunal panel member appointments did not affect the validity of the findings.
The circuits have come together with the Criminal Bar Association to indemnity the four barristers bringing a judicial review against the Legal Services Board over the legality of the Quality Assurance Scheme for Advocates.