Break up, build up

When David Edmonds first suggested last year that all frontline regulators should be replaced with a single regulator, most of us took this with a pinch of salt. It was another poke into the ants’ nest, a way of testing how stakeholders would respond to what appeared to be a frighteningly radical idea.

There is some of that, of course. Edmonds, in his regular skirmishes with the Law Society and Bar Council and Bar Standards Board, has been consistent in challenging the sector into thinking outside the proverbial box.

What is perhaps less obvious is what the LSB chair has demonstrated: that the Clementi reforms are not yet over. The Legal Services Act, far from being an end point, is the first stage on a long road to a new model for the sector. The break up of the old multifunction bodies into separate representative, regulatory and complaints organisations is only part one of the process. The next step is building up – Edmonds would like this to be from scratch – a different framework.

The ‘single point’ debate took a further twist this week when the consumer panel came out in favour of expanding LeO’s jurisdiction to include other legal professionals. Perhaps even other professionals outside the law altogether, such as architects. The latter would take things too far. LeO may have dealt with significantly fewer complaints than anticipated but this is no justification to provide jobs for under-employed staff (although Adam Sampson disagrees with the assumption).

But why not extend LeO’s role to include complaints against all providers of legal services? Many in the legal sector see this as unashamed empire building. This, they say, would result in more, not less, confusion for consumers, and would diminish the ‘solicitor’ brand. Why? Because consumers would be led to believe that all lawyers are the same, whether regulated or not.

From the consumer’s perspective, what matters is the quality of the service received and the provider’s competence. So to this extent, all ‘lawyers’ are already the same. For all concerned, and for solicitors in particular, it must be a better proposition to make sure that all legal services providers fall within the same complaints regime and are equally accountable. Arguments that this would legitimise untrained or lesser qualified providers are a distraction from the real issue. It may be an initial impression but if the profession continues to work on its distinctive ‘solicitor’ brand, it will come out strengthened rather than weakened.

After years of calling for claims management companies to be held to account, we cannot now turn back and ask for non-solicitors to be excluded from LeO’s scope. It is also disingenuous when so much of the routine work in many firms is undertaken by legal executives, paralegals, licensed conveyancers and even will writers. The profession shouldn’t be afraid of an expanded jurisdiction for LeO. Instead it should work with the ombudsman on the most suitable processes. Far from dumbing down the ‘solicitor’ brand, it could make it the most desirable one in the sector.

Jean-Yves Gilg is editor of Solicitors Journal

jean-yves.gilg@solicitorsjournal.co.uk