LSB hunts for second chief executive in a year after Moriarty quits


Moriarty: unexpected opportunity

Moriarty: unexpected opportunity

Legal Services Board (LSB) chief executive Richard Moriarty is to leave the post next February after just a year in the role, it was announced today.

Mr Moriarty is returning to the Civil Aviation Authority as its deputy chief executive and group director for consumers and markets.

He joined the LSB from Affinity Water, where he had been director of regulation for 15 months, prior to which was director of economic regulation at the authority, where he led its review of airport regulation and competition policy, which resulted in a shift towards greater deregulation.

The LSB said it would advertise for a successor shortly with a view to making an appointment early in the autumn.

Mr Moriarty said: “I am surprised and delighted to be offered this unique opportunity to return to aviation regulation next year at what will be a critical time for the industry. I will leave behind a strong and motivated LSB team which I have no doubt will go from strength to strength in its pursuit of change in the legal services market, so that it better reflects the interests of the public and consumers. Until then, it is very much business as usual at the LSB”.

LSB chairman Sir Michael Pitt said: “After making such a great start at the LSB, we will be sorry to see Richard leave us next year. He is a highly talented colleague and I wish him every success in his new role.”

Previously Mr Moriarty was director for policy and market development at the social housing regulator, now the Homes and Communities Agency, where he remains a non-executive member and deputy chair of its regulation committee.

He has also held roles of deputy chief executive of the Postal Services Commission and head of supply regulation at Ofgem, the energy regulator.

He holds an MBA from Warwick Business School and undergraduate and postgraduate degrees in economics.

Tags:




Blog


The AI governance gap in law firms and why it matters now

A third of law firms are already using AI tools with no formal policy in place to govern how AI gets used, what data goes into it, or who’s accountable when something goes wrong.


Information isn’t oversight – lessons from the PM Law review

The PM Law review’s real findings perhaps point to a failure mode applying to any organisation sitting on scattered risk information.


AI can do the work but it cannot inherit the lawyer’s duty

What happens when lawyers delegate cognitive work to AI but remain personally responsible for judgements they may no longer have independently reasoned through?


Loading animation