LSB: concern over behaviour at top of Bar Council and BSB sparked independence probe


Bar: was the Bar Council the controlling mind?

The Legal Services Board’s (LSB) initial probe into the independent regulation of barristers uncovered “a number of concerns about the Bar Council’s and the Bar Standards Board’s behaviour at both junior and senior executive as well as board level”, it has emerged.

As a result, in June the LSB launched a formal investigation into whether the Bar Council interfered with controversial changes made by the Bar Standards Board (BSB) to the cab-rank rule to facilitate the new contractual terms between barristers and solicitors.

The changes were approved by the LSB.

Background papers newly released by the LSB said it was first alerted to a potential problem in March “when the Bar Council issued a statement to the effect that it had designed the new contractual terms to provide ‘appropriate protection to barristers’. It also stated that the Bar Council would be undertaking further work in relation to those terms, with the Law Society, to promote ‘our professional interest’”.

Although much of the key information is redacted, the papers reveal that the concerns about the behaviour of executives and board members resulted from information requested by the LSB under a statutory notice. A second notice followed, the response to which did not assuage the LSB’s concerns.

“The information shows that the Bar Council was deeply involved in the drafting of BSB board and committee papers as well as the rule change application to the LSB,” the papers said.

As a result the formal investigation has been launched and among the issues the LSB is considering are whether the Bar Council placed “significant legal risk on the BSB’s decision by acting as the author of a proposal on which it was one of a number of consultees” and whether there is evidence that the Bar Council was the “controlling mind” and determined the content of the application to the LSB, as well as processing its preparation.

“In particular, whose view prevailed in the event of disagreement over drafting or approach?”

Also, whether there was an attempt to deceive the LSB about the source of the rule change application – given that it had previously asked whether standard terms were actually a representative matter, rather than a regulatory one – is under the spotlight.

When the formal investigation was launched, the Bar Council said it strongly supported the principle of regulatory independence and denied that it had in any way undermined the BSB’s independence.

Tags:





Leave a Comment

By clicking Submit you consent to Legal Futures storing your personal data and confirm you have read our Privacy Policy and section 5 of our Terms & Conditions which deals with user-generated content. All comments will be moderated before posting.

Required fields are marked *
Email address will not be published.

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

Reports

Our latest special report, produced in association with Temple Legal Protection, looks at the role of after-the-event (ATE) insurance in commercial litigation post-LASPO. We are at a time when insurers, solicitors, clients and litigation funders work ever more closely to create funding packages that work for all of them, with conditional fee and even damages-based agreements now part of many law firms’ armoury.

Blog

10 December 2019

Is your website lost in the desert?

Having a website is like advertising on a billboard in the middle of the desert – it’s pretty useless unless people are driving past to see it. It’s exactly the same with cyberspace.

Read More

Loading animation