Evans: LSB needs to strengthen regulatory oversight
The Legal Services Board (LSB) should increase its oversight of the Solicitors Regulation Authority (SRA) to ensure the failures around Axiom Ince and SSB Group are not repeated, the Law Society has said.
“The continued strengthening of the LSB’s regulatory oversight of regulators’ performance, particularly where concerns remain or risks have been identified regarding performance or processes will benefit consumers of legal services in a direct way,” it said.
“This is particularly important given the LSB’s identification of the legal market’s continuous and rapid change, to avoid repeats of collapses and consumer harm such as with Axiom Ince and the SSB Group.”
Responding to the LSB’s consultation on its draft business plan and budget for 2026-27 [1], the Law Society said it continued to be concerned about the SRA’s ability “to appropriately regulate and oversee ABS structures and accumulator firms, particularly where low value asset client work is involved”.
The failure to protect clients “is of particular concern” and the LSB should work to ensure the SRA was focused on implementing the directions imposed [2] by the LSB following its review of what happened with Axiom Ince “to ensure that this does not repeat”.
The Law Society also highlighted its concerns about the SRA’s internal investigation processes and the length of time it took before matters were referred to the Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal.
“As the SRA’s internal fining powers were increased, it is likely that fewer cases will be referred to the SDT, and we would suggest that as part of this workstream the LSB should focus on greater monitoring of this area to ensure that matters are being fairly and properly triaged, investigated, and decided, in a timely manner, mitigating the detriment to the wellbeing of those involved in the disciplinary process.”
The response also urged the LSB to focus on addressing performance issues of the Legal Ombudsman by setting goals and targets, rather than just monitoring – and welcomed the proposed 0.5% reduction in the LSB’s budget.
It backed the LSB’s ambition to achieve “a cultural step-change that empowers ethical decision-making across the profession” as well.
“The proposed professional ethics network (PEN) could play a role in fostering dialogue and sharing best practice. We encourage the LSB to ensure that PEN’s work is measurable and outcome-focused, so that it delivers tangible improvements rather than becoming a purely consultative forum.”
Law Society president Mark Evans said: “The LSB continues to acknowledge calls from stakeholders to focus on its core functions under the Legal Services Act 2007.
“Strengthening regulatory oversight by monitoring regulators’ performance and identifying key concerns will directly benefit consumers of legal services.”
In its response, the Bar Council said it supported the LSB’s increased scrutiny of the BSB.
“Last year we had concerns about achievement by the BSB of its key performance indicators in relation to the timeliness of investigations and of processing authorisations-related applications.
“We were pleased the BSB consulted on a range of changes to its enforcement processes last year, with a view to increasing efficiency and transparency. We hope that, once implemented, these changes will speed up their investigations. This will benefit barristers, complainants and witnesses.
“But it is also vital that the BSB should continue to prioritise authorisations applications from barristers. Delays can affect barristers’ ability to practise, or the way in which they wish to practise.”
The Bar Council was also pleased that, “for the first time in a number of years”, the LSB was not proposing to increase its budget.
The Council for Licensed Conveyancers’ response called for the LSB to become “a more vocal stakeholder at a government level” beyond the Ministry of Justice, such as addressing the plan to require conveyancers to register directly with HM Revenue & Customs as tax advisors if they deal with stamp duty, the regulation of estate agents, and the transfer of anti-money laundering supervision to the Financial Conduct Authority.
It also suggested that recent LSB policy statements and approval of rule change applications were becoming “increasingly directive and prescriptive” and failed to take account of “how different the various legal professions are and the differences that exist between the legal services themselves”.
Last week, the Ministry of Justice announced a review of the LSB [3].