LSB defends 'clear hierarchy' of regulators

The LSB has strongly defended its position and its duty to take "positive, but proportionate" action to deliver the regulatory objectives of the Legal Services Act.

The move follows a call for evidence by the Ministry of Justice on the regulation of legal services. David Edmonds, chairman of the LSB, told the justice committee in March that a single regulator would be clearer for consumers and for lawyers.

In a paper published yesterday, the LSB said that while approved regulators, like the Law Society and Bar Standards Board, shared a common responsibility to act in line with the same regulatory objectives, there was a "clear hierarchy".

The oversight regulator went on: "The scope of our oversight is wide. Our judgements are not limited to considering simply whether a decision of an approved regulator is 'Wednesbury' reasonable.

"It can be open to the LSB to impose a different solution, if we reasonably form a judgement that the regulator's decision is harmful when considered in the broader context of our oversight of the entire sector, or that a more proportionate, effective means of implementation is possible.

"We understand that approved regulators would prefer a hands off approach from us. But the legal constraints on our ability to be proactive are light.

"Our role at the apex of regulation, arrived at with legislative intent, means we are able and indeed bound to take positive, but proportionate, action to deliver the regulatory objectives. Choosing not to act is not an option for us."

The LSB concluded: "To do otherwise would be to ignore the single most important rationale for the regulatory model - that without oversight, the self-governing nature of regulators may mean that best regulatory practice could be ignored, that barriers to entry could be maintained and that self-interest would drive regulation to the exclusion of the interests of the public and all who need to use legal services."

Introducing the board's annual report, also published yesterday, Edmonds said the LSB was happy to reflect on how to "further reduce cost and complexity in regulation", but "winding back the clock a pre-Legal Services Act world of unfettered, unaccountable professional self-regulation is not, I believe, an option".

He added: "The LSB will persist in challenging barriers to entry and regulatory frameworks which, in design and operation, confused the public and consumer interest with professional self-interest."