Separate business rule reform will “unlock” competition and innovation in legal market


consumer contract

Consumer panel: Stronger safeguards needed, but existing rule has “chilling effect”

The Legal Services Consumer Panel has given “qualified support” to plans by the Solicitors Regulation Authority (SRA) to rewrite the separate business rule (SBR).

The panel said the existing rule had “fallen into disrepute” and no longer protected consumers.

Further, it limited choice and had a “chilling effect” on innovation.

“The panel remains concerned about loss of consumer protection and the increased scope for confusion. However, the SBR has become anachronistic in an economy where there is consumer demand for legal and non-legal services offered through a variety of business models.

“We are also swayed by the need for radical changes to unlock the competition and innovation that is urgently required to address the huge levels of unmet need.

“With a strengthened set of safeguards than currently proposed and active monitoring, the substantially revised SBR would seem a proportionate response to the risks facing consumers.”

The panel called for the safeguards in the SRA plans, which take the form of outcomes rather than prescriptive rules, to be extended.

Instead of banning referrals to unregulated services in specified areas of probate, litigation and family work, the panel said the SRA should ensure that “prohibited referrals cover all high-risk areas of law”.

The panel said its support for the SBR was also conditional on the proposed “information remedies” – designed to prevent clients becoming confused about the level of protection they are getting – being subjected to “rigorous” consumer testing.

“We also expect to see an active supervision regime put in place, at least in the first few years as the market adapts to change.”

The panel said that although its remit was confined to legal services, there were “clear advantages” in allowing law firms to offer “one-stop shop advice”, including services such as accountancy.

It agreed with the SRA that solicitors that provide unregulated services through separate businesses should not refer to themselves as “non-practising solicitors”.

The SRA’s plans have been strongly attacked by the City of London Law Society, which warned of “irreparable damage” to the solicitor brand and by Chancery Lane, which suggested that the legal services market could become “destabilised”.

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

26 February 2020

Law schools, the SQE and technology

Many legal education providers are grappling with how to respond to the SQE. One thing that is clear is that courses will need to offer exposure to, and the use of, technology.

Read More

Loading animation