What is the Coalition thinking?

Print This Post

9 July 2010

Posted by Neil Rose, Editor, Legal Futures 

Government: still few official words from the Coalition on the Legal Services Act

I thought I would post an update on what I have heard about the Coalition’s thinking about the legal services reforms – there’s nothing concrete, because ministers are still not talking about this subject publicly (beyond Jonathan Djanogly’s comments here). This comes just from being round and about and talking to those who are (or at least claim to be) in the know, so I can’t vouch for its total accuracy.

First of all, the Legal Services Board and Office for Legal Complaints (OLC) are not on the Ministry of Justice’s list of quangos that could be done away with (every department is drawing up such a list). They think it is because they offer the possibility of reducing regulation and cutting costs; that may well be, but I suspect the more basic reality is that because they are funded by the legal profession, there is no financial benefit to getting rid of them.

Second, the OLC and alternative business structures (ABSs) will survive scrutiny by Vince Cable’s reducing regulation Cabinet committee. I’m told the decision is 99% there but has not been formally signed off.

Third, though there has been talk about ABSs possibly being delayed for a few months, it would appear that we are still on course for 6 October 2011.

Fourth, on a bit of a tangent, but a relevant one, there appears to be more enthusiasm about the Jackson review than there was among Labour ministers. There is talk about a consultation paper later in the year, but it still has some hurdles to jump. Further, it is linked in with the fundamental review of legal aid – legal aid cuts will obviously increase the importance of other methods of funding cases, and so the government will need to be sure that, in implementing Jackson, it is not leaving those no longer eligible for legal aid between a rock and a hard place. A final possible spanner in the works is Lord Young’s review of health and safety laws, which includes the so-called compensation culture, in which the role of claims management companies will presumably come under scrutiny once again.

Finally, and most importantly, should we be using the term Office for Legal Complaints or Legal Ombudsman to describe the new complaints-handling operation in Birmingham (in answer to Brian Rogers’ query here). Well, I’ve asked and both are right. The OLC is the formal name contained in the Legal Services Act, and Elizabeth France chairs the board of the OLC. Legal Ombudsman is the trading name to make it sound more approachable. LeO appears to be the preferred acronym – LegO, sadly for those of us who have headlines to write, has fallen by the wayside.

Tags: , , ,

2 Responses to “What is the Coalition thinking?”

  1. I can’t help wondering if one of the main reasons this has survived the “cost cutting cull” is because it saves nothing for the Government to lose it and costs nothing to keep it.

    It is, I think, at the profession’s cost?

  2. Andrew Woolley on July 9th, 2010 at 1:16 pm
  3. Andrew – in a word, yes!

  4. admin on July 12th, 2010 at 12:57 pm

Leave a comment

* Denotes required field

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

Legal Futures Blog

‘No, minister – CMCs are not the answer to your problem’

Qamar Anwar 2

Last month, MPs on the justice select committee asked minister Lord Keen what would happen when the government went ahead with its plan to raise the small claims limit for personal injury claims (from £1,000 to £5,000 for road traffic related claims and to £2,000 for everything else). As it is a jurisdiction in which lawyers do not generally operate – because legal costs are not recoverable – who might help claimants navigate what can still be a complex process? His answer, surprisingly, was claims management companies.

February 22nd, 2018