Mayson: Legal Services Act heading for “knacker’s yard”

Print This Post

9 September 2014


Professor Stephen Mayson

Professor Mayson: Regulation based on Victorian “guild and apprenticeship” model

The “flaws and limitations” of the Legal Services Act are “all too apparent” and, as every year goes by, it is moving closer to “the regulatory equivalent of the knacker’s yard”, Professor Stephen Mayson has said.

The professor said the current framework of legal services regulation was “essentially founded on a Victorian guild and apprenticeship model”.

He said developments in technology, globalisation and increasing interest in multi-disciplinary provision had resulted in greater variety and complexity of delivery, including ownership structures and reward-sharing.

“This is not a world in which the Victorian guild, one-size-fits-all, model can operate, designed as it was for a market of homogeneity, simplicity and inertia for which rules-based regulation is suitable.”

He told the Westminster Legal Policy Forum in London last week: “The future envisaged by Sir David Clementi’s proposals has already arrived. In some aspects, we have gone further.

“I do not have confidence that the Legal Services Act 2007 will see us through to a sustainable future – one which properly enables providers of legal services to innovate and serve both the public and the consumer interest, and which properly and appropriately protects clients and consumers of all legal services.

“We will need a new regulatory settlement within the foreseeable future, and I cannot escape the conclusion that this would require primary legislation.”

Professor Mayson said that promoting and protecting the public interest should become the “predominant and overriding regulatory objective”, rather than having eight “sometimes contradictory and conflicting statutory objectives”.

He said the public interest duty should become “an additional professional standard applied to all regulated persons”, which could help tackle the “more egregious, aggressive, bullying, time-wasting and cost-insensitive behaviour” exhibited by some lawyers, who justify their actions as acting in the client’s best interests.

However Professor Mayson stopped short of joining the Lord Chief Justice, Lord Thomas, president of the Supreme Court Lord Neuberger and the Legal Services Board in calling for a single regulator.

He said that if there was a move to “true activity-based regulation”, there should be no need for duplication or overlap in approved regulators for each activity. Admitting to being “ambivalent” about whether this would lead to a single regulator, he said that, with “the increasing heterogeneity and complexity of provision and providers”, specialised regulation and specialist regulators would “most likely” be needed.

“To a degree, we already have some of this specialisation in relation to advocacy, notarial activities, costs, immigration and claims management – though even here there are overlaps.

“Whether this line of thinking then leads us to a single General Legal Council with specialist sub-units within it, or to an Advocacy Standards Board, a Litigation Standards Board, and so on, with or without some over-arching coordination or accountability, would no doubt be the subject of heated debate.”

Professor Mayson argued that “clarity and coherence” were more important than simplification. He concluded that the “regulatory net” could be extended “in a way which would simplify and clarify our current arrangements, deliver coherence to the regulatory framework, and institute more effective regulation, ultimately for the benefit of all.”

This included extending the reach of regulation to all legal activities offered or carried out for reward. “This would not necessarily entail authorisation of all providers, whether individuals or entities. It seems to me that the Legal Ombudsman’s ability to offer a route to redress or compensation does not need to be limited to or constrained by any earlier process of authorisation or licensing.”

Tags: , ,



Leave a comment

* Denotes required field

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

Legal Futures Blog

New right to paid leave for bereaved parents: A welcome move

Kimberley Manning DAS

This year, like many in recent years, has seen some key changes within the employment law field, with the government, trade unions and lobbyists remaining endlessly engaged in seeking to impose their interpretation of fair balance between employers and their respective workforces. Although consensus on that equilibrium can never really be achieved, sometimes there are pieces of legislative movement which are difficult to argue with regardless of your perspective: This is one of those. Published on 13 October 2017, the Parental Bereavement (Pay and Leave) Bill would provide for the first time a legal right to parents who are employed and have suffered the death of a child, a minimum of two weeks’ leave in which to grieve.

November 20th, 2017