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Email address will not be published.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.

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

16 October 2019

The new SRA accounts rules – a checklist for compliant software

There are a number of changes to the accounts rules from 25 November, which law firm managers and compliance officers will need to take into account in order for their firms not to be in breach.

Read More

Loading animation