Papers reveal Bar intransigence over BSB independence row


Davies: BSB made independent decisions

The Legal Services Board (LSB) was on the verge of issuing an unprecedented public censure of the Bar Council over its interference with the independence of the Bar Standards Board (BSB), new papers have revealed.

They show that the LSB was going to censure the Bar Council because it initially refused to accept the highly critical findings of the board’s investigation into changes made to the cab-rank rule last year as part of the new standard contractual terms.

The LSB’s October meeting was told that the Bar Council’s denial suggested “a failure to appreciate the seriousness both of the findings and of the underlying legal obligations which the IGRs [internal governance rules] are in place to ensure”.

Neither the Bar Council nor BSB have made any substantive statements about the matter since they eventually warded off the threat by accepting the findings and providing various undertakings, meaning the matter was resolved informally.

However, the LSB has published a letter it received from BSB director Dr Vanessa Davies – agreed by the Bar Council – ahead of the October meeting. This shows that they strongly contested the allegation of Bar Council interference. “The BSB is wholly satisfied that all decisions it took in relation to the development of its standard contractual terms, and their inclusion in our regulatory arrangements, from 2009 onwards, were made independently of the Bar Council,” she wrote.

However, she said the BSB accepted that the investigation identified “a need to reinforce to staff both in the Bar Council and in the BSB that they must observe clear boundaries between areas of regulatory and representative activity”. An LSB analysis of the letter said this “appears to be directing blame towards staff as opposed to [BSB] board members”.

The papers also reveal that had the Bar Council not accepted the findings, the LSB was also set to issue a direction that would have forced on it the measures that it has now undertaken to introduce.

See blog: Brothers in arms?

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Email address will not be published.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.

Blog


NFTs, the courts and the role of injunctions

In May, news broke that a non-fungible token was the subject of a successful injunction made by the Singapore High Court. The NFT in question is part of the very valuable Bored Ape Yacht Club series.


Matthew Pascall

Low-value commercial cases – an achievable challenge for ATE insurers

There are many good claims brought for damages that are likely to be significantly less than twice the cost of bringing the claim. These cases present a real challenge for insurers.


Lawyers who break AML rules face bigger, more public fines

Last month, two all-party parliamentary groups published a joint economic crime manifesto that sets out a “comprehensive list of pragmatic reforms” designed to tackle the UK’s dirty money crisis.


Loading animation