Tribunal judges call for regulatory controls over non-lawyer employment advisers

Print This Post

By Legal Futures

2 December 2011


Employment dispute: judges call for level playing field

The Legal Ombudsman should have jurisdiction over non-lawyer employment advisers as part of work to improve consumer protection in the field, employment judges have suggested.

Responding to the Legal Services Board’s consultation paper Enhancing consumer protection, reducing regulatory restrictions, the Judiciary of the Employment Tribunals said its primary concern was the lack of consistency in the redress available to claimants given the wide range of people – most of whom are not regulated – who act as advocates before tribunals.

The judges complained that claimants, the judiciary and the effective operation of the Tribunal Service are all “impacted upon by poor-quality advice, preparation, representation and advocacy”.

Tags: , , , ,



Legal Futures Blog

How to make a case to the unconverted

Jonathan Whittle

The prospect of change is a daunting one, whether you’re a global firm or a small one. You might think that your firm’s working practices are fine, or that there’s no value in altering the way you do things because of the disruption it would cause. You might even see the benefits of using a different methodology, but still refuse to put the effort in to implement it – and you wouldn’t be alone. From our research in the 2016 report, The Riddle of Perception, we know that 73% of lawyers believe that adapting to change is not where their strength lies. However, it’s no longer optional.

November 16th, 2017