Editor's blog | Single regulator: why not?

When David Edmonds suggested this week that all existing frontline regulators should be wound into a single organisation, he did not expect them to wholeheartedly agree with him.

Knowing the way in which the thick-skinned, straight-batting chairman of the Legal Services Board can give as well as receive knocks, his suggestion should not come as a surprise either.

Edmonds made the comment to the Commons’ Justice Committee, who is looking into the workings, cost and benefits of the supra-regulator. So the question of whether the board was any use and had achieved anything for consumers came up within minutes of the start of the proceedings. And, one question leading to another, whether the legal services sector, with its multitude of representative, regulatory and complaints bodies, wasn’t now so crowded that consumers were possibly more confused than they were before the Legal Services Act.

Edmonds’ candid reply was: yes. The regulatory framework could be simplified “quite easily” and, left to his own devices, he would consider merging all regulators into one. But of course, it wasn’t up to him; this was a matter for parliament.

All primary regulators – to use Edmonds’ terminology – have objected, to various degrees. At one end, those in principle opposed to the move find it “ill-considered” (Maura McGowan, president of the Bar Council) and fear it would “undermine the rule of law” (Baroness Ruth Deech, chair of the Bar Standards Board). It is not even a question of timing, they say, it is simply inadequate. Their reaction is perhaps not surprising, bearing in mind the historical bad blood between Bedford Row and Victoria House. More moderate objectors mention the need for targeted and proportionate regulation, or warn against hastily undoing a framework that is only just bedding down.

The truth is, we already have a single regulator. The SRA regulates non-contentious legal advisers as well as advocates; large City firms and sole practitioners in small provincial towns; some who advise on low-value private client matters, others on global intellectual property law issues. And this regulator has jurisdiction over 120,000 professionals. Other regulators combined don’t come anywhere near it.

So it may not be too surprising that both Des Hudson and Antony Townsend should be the only two who have not ruled out Edmonds’ suggestion outright. Hudson positively agrees the system could be simplified and made less bureaucratic, while Townsend accepts that it is complex and multi-layered. The issue for them is one of timing.

You may not agree with Edmonds’ position, but he is undoubtedly asking the right question. There is already a single complaints body for the profession, the Legal Ombudsman, whose remit covers solicitors, barristers and other legal professionals, and could even extend to self-help legal products. Similarly the SRA’s structure – however imperfect it sometimes feels – suggests that it is possible for a regulator to adjust its approach depending on the nature and size of the firms it regulates.

Setting up a single regulator may not feel the most natural move at this stage but it is not inherently unthinkable.