New bosses in, old attitudes out?

Many major figures in the Legal Services Board, the Law Society and SRA will leave the stage and be replaced by new faces this year, which prompts two questions. First, how did the outgoing leaders do? Second, what can we expect from their replacements? Cynics may also ask whether it will make any difference.

David Edmonds steps down as LSB chair on 30 April after six years in post. His previous career included the senior civil service, Housing Corporation, NatWest Group and the board of Ofcom for which, most significantly to many, he
was director general of telecommunications for the UK.

Notably, his remit at the
LSB was not only to maintain professional standards, but to promote competition in the legal services sector.

Edmonds, and the LSB, initially went about their business quietly. But over the last 18 months, he has become noticeably more critical of what he perceived as reluctance at both the Bar and in the Law Society/SRA to embrace change, and an inclination
to cling to the status quo.

This has incurred the wrath
of the Bar in particular, which has consistently tried to persuade the government
to get rid of it.

All LSB chairs, and now their counterparts in the frontline legal regulators, must be lay persons. Edmonds’ successor is Sir Michael Pitt, who has been chief executive of the Planning Inspectorate for the past three years. He will oversee the LSB’s 30 staff, a number that Edmonds, to his credit, kept below what was originally agreed.

Sir Michael’s career also includes the NHS and being chief executive of both Cheshire and Kent county councils. He has no background in law or, apparently, in competition, and no clear political affiliation.

Safe hands

Sir Michael appears to be the proverbial safe pair of hands. Perhaps the Ministry of Justice, which made the appointment, doesn’t want too many more barristers and solicitors upset than is already the case.

In March, the SRA advertised in national newspapers for its first lay chair, the previous incumbents, Charles Plant and Peter Williamson, having both been solicitors.

Plant leaves his post at the
end of 2014, having accepted the role for an extra year. First perceived as close to City interests and the Law Society, he has proved to be a little
more independent on the
SRA’s behalf than either of
those stakeholders might
have expected.

Given that the SRA has been coerced by the LSB into having
a lay chair, it would be surprising if anyone radical or consumer-oriented was appointed.

There will be no shortage of applicants for the post, which pays £90,000 for 100 days a year.

Whoever the new SRA chair might be, that person will be working with a relatively new chief executive and director of policy. Paul Philip, whose background includes roles at the General Medical Council and NHS, as well as the Legal Services Commission, took over from Antony Townsend on 1 February.

Philip inherits a strained relationship with both the Law Society and the profession. He has promised to “fundamentally review the model of regulation” and, while confirming the regulator’s approach to risk and outcomes-focused regulation, has suggested the need for a greater emphasis on customer care. He carries with him a reputation for being more hands-on than Townsend. He
is joined by new policy director Crispin Passmore, who impressed the SRA with his policy work at the LSB.

Law Society CEO Des Hudson’s resignation, with effect from July, will strengthen Philip’s hand if he chooses to push for greater independence from the society.

Hudson is known for being tough and has done a very good job in holding the society together. He may have suffered a vote of no confidence over his handling of the legal aid negotiations but, in the words of president Nick Fluck, he will be a difficult act to follow at a time when (as he did not say) the raison d’être of the society
is increasingly being called
into question. SJ

Stuart Bushell is managing director of SIFA

Copyright & permissions