Mixed response to Edmonds' call for a single legal regulator

Maura McGowan, Bar Council, chair

This is an extremely ill-considered suggestion. It would result in an inefficient, expensive and overwhelming system, totally lacking in focus. It would attempt to regulate every legal service provider from will-writers to supreme court advocates, regardless of the different professional codes and duties under which they operate.

It is another example of a fundamental misunderstanding by the Legal Services Board of the many different services the legal profession provides and how it provides them. To float such an idea before a parliamentary select committee without having consulted the legal profession or the existing regulators is, frankly, extraordinary.

Baroness Deech, Bar Standards Board, chair

Forcing a single regulator on the legal sector would be in effect bringing an end to the independent bar, a profession with a historic record of defending every litigant in need and upholding the rule of law.

Barristers’ skills are sought all over the world and are key to the attraction of London as a global forum. Their skills demand separate rules and regulation. Attempting to over-simplify varied legal services risks merging the profession and diluting the duty of the barrister to the court and would ultimately undermine the rule of law.

Antony Townsend, Solicitors Regulation Authority, chief executive

The regulatory structures set up by the Legal Services Act preserve some of the strengths of independent regulation and strong professional input, but have the significant disadvantage of being complex and multi-layered. This problem was evident during the debates leading up to the Act, and will clearly need to be revisited. The issue is timing.

“The legal services sector is in the throes of major reform and economic stress. All of us have much to do to manage the consequences of that in the public interest and to complete the delivery of a reformed approach to regulation.

“Significant changes to the regulatory architecture would involve a major effort by regulators, consumer groups, professional bodies, government and Parliament at a time when such resources are at a premium. However, I think the issue should be revisited in say two to three years’ time when the implementation of outcomes focused regulation and other associated reforms has been completed.

At that point, it should be easier to consider whether the balance of advantages has shifted towards further consolidation.

Des Hudson, Law Society, chief executive

We agree that the current system could be simplified and any change to the regulatory framework must protect the principle of self-regulation which is recognised as a key principle in our legal services regulatory regime and makes UK legal services attractive to the rest of the world, contributing to the international success of the profession. The Law Society is itself working with its members to identify how a regulatory regime could be simplified to ensure that clients are protected in a cost effective way that minimises bureaucratic burdens.

Diane Burleigh OBE, CILEx, chief executive

Now is not the time to be discussing further changes to the regulatory framework. There is much still to be done. The boundaries and distinctions in the legal market are beginning to come down, with the introduction of ABSs and our efforts to increase the independent practice rights of vocationally trained lawyers.

CILEx and IPS have made significant gains in improving the accessibility and diversity of the legal profession, and our efforts, and those of other Approved Regulators, may be stalled if we are distracted by further arguments over what regulation should ?look like. Parliament was very clear when it made the Legal Services Act 2007 that there would be specialist regulators, and designed a framework working with the legal professions that kept a degree of the best of self-regulation, while injecting a healthy dose of external objectivity. There is no evidence to support change so early in these developments.

Iain Stark, Association of Costs Lawyers, chair

A one size fits all approach to regulation simply is not feasible. This is echoed by the Legal Services Act itself, which was designed with the big three regulators in mind and not the regulation of the wider legal community.

Regulation must be based on the perceived risk of an individual professional. The burden of regulation becomes greater as you go higher upon the legal community food chain. For example costs lawyers on a risk basis pose very little concern, as we are not at present able to hold client money. Whereas a solicitor holds client money and poses potentially a bigger threat.

The only reason for a single regulator would be with a view to extending the net wider than simply those current authorised providers and bring into the arena the current wealth of non-regulated professions that ply their trade within the legal sector and earn a living, such as claims management companies, process servers, witness statements takers and not forgetting law costs draftsmen.

Anna Bradley, Council for Licensed Conveyancers, chair

There’s no doubt that it will be right to examine the regulatory structure for the delivery of legal services at some time in the future, but that time is some way off. At present, we are proud to be taking an active role at the forefront of innovative regulation and will continue to do so, as we have done for over 25 years.

While we understand that, superficially, a single regulator for legal services might seem an attractive option; in practice having smaller regulators thatspecialise in a particular areas brings clear expertise and focus, driven by consumer interest. We are able to build up an in-depth knowledge and body of intelligence about our regulated community which ensures we offer a high degree of reassurance to consumers that they are protected and can access high quality services.

Catherine Wolfe, Institute of Trade Mark Attorneys (ITMA), president, and Chris Mercer, Chartered Institute of Patent Attorneys (CIPA), president

The professional organisations for specialist intellectual property attorneys do not agree with Mr Edmonds. Any advantage to the public of having a single regulator would be outweighed by ?the disadvantages.

The LSA requires regulation to protect consumers, allow competition and improve access to the legal system. Regulation must also be transparent and proportionate. ?The introduction of a single regulator would have an adverse effect in all these areas.

It would not be clear to the public that this single regulator covered all legal professions, not only solicitors and barristers, who carry out the broad range of most legal work. This often includes handling client money (for example, in property conveyancing) and sensitive domestic matters (including divorce). Such legal work requires a regulatory regime proportionate to the higher risk involved. But IP attorneys rarely handle client money and do not work in sensitive domestic matters, so need a regulatory regime proportionate to this much lower risk.

At present, registered trade mark attorneys and patent attorneys are regulated by the Intellectual Property Regulatory Board (IPReg). This regulator provides specialist regulation, proportionate to the low risk, at a reasonable cost. This allows competition, which protects consumer interests.