This website uses cookies

This website uses cookies to ensure you get the best experience. By using our website, you agree to our Privacy Policy

Law Society urges SRA to withdraw CILEX regulation proposals

Law Society urges SRA to withdraw CILEX regulation proposals


The Law Society of England and Wales has voiced strong opposition to the Solicitors Regulation Authority’s (SRA) proposal to regulate both authorised and non-authorised members of the Chartered Institute of Legal Executives (CILEX)

The SRA’s consultation lacks clear, evidence-based justification for the potential impact on consumers and the broader public interest.

Key Concerns:

  • The Law Society asserts that the SRA should retract this and previous proposals regarding the regulation of CILEX members, focusing instead on its core regulatory duties.
  • Regulating non-authorised individuals is deemed unnecessary due to existing supervision and oversight arrangements.
  • The proposals could negatively affect consumers and the public interest, causing confusion about legal service regulation and consumer choice.
  • CILEx Regulation (CRL) is already established as the dedicated regulator for CILEX members.

Law Society CEO Ian Jeffery emphasised the redundancy and potential harm of the SRA’s proposals: “There is significant overlap between this consultation and CILEX and the SRA’s 2023 consultations. The SRA should withdraw these proposals and focus on its core responsibilities.”

Ian Jeffery highlighted the importance of distinguishing between regulation and membership issues, noting, “It is not necessary to have non-authorised CILEX members regulated individually. The consultation lacks a compelling case for such regulation.”

Consumer Impact: Ian Jeffery stressed the potential confusion for consumers, stating, “There is a significant risk of increased consumer confusion should these proposals proceed. The proposals could impair the SRA’s ability to effectively regulate the solicitor profession.”

The Law Society also questioned the assumption that its approval for changes to the SRA’s corporate objects is a mere formality. “Such approval cannot be assumed and would require a decision from the Society’s Council,” Jeffery explained.

CRL’s Position: Ian Jeffery concluded by supporting CRL’s role: “CRL has firmly opposed the proposed redelegation, stating there have been no regulatory failings on its part. It has established its role as the bespoke regulator of CILEX members.”

The Law Society’s position underscores the need for clear regulatory boundaries and consumer protection in the legal services sector.