Trust, transparency and the limits of legal self-regulation

In regulating legal services, trust isn't some vague ideal. It's the foundation of the profession's legitimacy. Lawyers hold state-delegated powers, control exclusive areas of practice, and benefit from privileges like client confidentiality, rights of audience, and self-regulation. In exchange, the public has every right to demand competence, honesty, and real accountability. When transparency slips, trust erodes quickly.

The last ten years of legal services regulation in England and Wales have shown a persistent gap between bold goals and actual results. Regulators have set out an ambitious plan for a more open, competitive, consumer-focused market. But advances have been gradual, patchy, and sometimes noticeably slow. The clearest example is the much-delayed Legal Services Register, officially the Regulatory Information Service. Meant as a key tool for empowering consumers, its drawn-out development now raises a fundamental issue about the whole system: can regulators actually carry out the big changes they've promised time and again?

This isn't just a consumer concern, it affects the entire profession. Once trust fades, it's hard to rebuild. With recent major regulatory missteps, rising public criticism, and growing political frustration over self-regulation, the legal world can't take ongoing confidence for granted. Openness, ethical standards, and effective oversight are essential requirements now, not nice-to-haves. They're what preserves legitimacy.

The Legal Services Register: transparency deferred

The idea of one central, reliable public register for legal providers has been around for years. Back in 2016, the Competition and Markets Authority reported that consumers struggled with basic steps: spotting regulated providers, grasping what services they offered, or weighing up choices. The market came across as disjointed, unclear, and tough to navigate, especially for ordinary people and small firms. The CMA's solution was straightforward: a unified digital register pulling in data from across the sector, letting people check qualifications, insurance, disciplinary records, and decide with confidence.

The job of creating it landed with the Legal Services Board, the overarching statutory regulator. The planned Regulatory Information Service aimed to merge information from all frontline bodies into one accessible public site, thorough, official, and user-friendly. It was supposed to remove the hassle of jumping between different regulator sites, puzzling over varying terms, or depending only on firms' own promotional content.

Almost a decade on, the commitment still hasn't materialised. After multiple promises, shifted deadlines, and beta trials, the full launch remains pending. By the end of 2025, rollout was pushed back once more, with delivery now eyed for no sooner than 2026. Consumer groups find the hold-up harder to defend each time. The Legal Services Consumer Panel chair has called it unacceptable, pointing out that people were assured a transparency-boosting resource but got extended doubt and lack of clarity instead.

The fallout isn't hypothetical. Right now, anyone wanting to verify a legal adviser's regulation has to trawl through a mess of separate databases, for solicitors, barristers, legal executives, licensed conveyancers, and so on, each with its own layout and ease of use. Most firms do post some regulatory details on their sites, but that's no replacement for a neutral, side-by-side comparison tool. The fragmentation lingers, along with the dangers of mix-ups, bad info, or outright deception.

The Legal Services Board admits the register isn't fully up and running yet, even though it's been flagged as a priority transparency step for years. Observers blame governance shortcomings and execution issues, like leaning too heavily on frontline regulators without strong enough central direction. There's mounting pressure for the LSB to either seize control of the project directly or give a solid, believable plan for getting it done.

More is at risk here than a tardy tech rollout. The register was designed to reflect a regulatory approach that puts consumer insight first. Its ongoing absence could imply the reverse: that transparency is more talk than action. Should 2026 slip by without real progress, demands for bigger structural overhauls, and a hard look at priority-setting and delivery, will only grow louder.

Website transparency and its limits

Without the central register, regulators have focused on narrower steps. The most prominent are the Solicitors Regulation Authority’s Transparency Rules from 2018. These oblige SRA-regulated firms to display key details on their websites for certain public-facing work, prices, service outlines, complaints processes, and regulatory standing. The aim was to cut information gaps and spur competition through clear, value-driven choices.

Seven years later, results are uneven. Some see real shifts in mindset: most firms now share at least part of the required info, the majority show the SRA digital badge, and plenty offer pricing for routine matters like conveyancing and probate, fields once shrouded in secrecy.

Consumers appear to be adapting too. Surveys show more people comparing lawyers before committing, with online searches now standard. Comparison sites and review platforms are gaining ground, and regulators are starting to work with them instead of pushing back. The SRA's partnerships with review sites and its voluntary code for comparison platforms show a practical acceptance that transparency extends beyond official channels.

Still, the drawbacks stand out. Complete compliance is hard to achieve. Less than half of firms claim full coverage for all relevant services, and SRA checks indicate self-reporting tends to be optimistic. Typical problems involve patchy pricing, no clear explanation of who's handling the work, and formats that make side-by-side comparisons awkward.

Those shortcomings count. Transparency works only when details are full, correct, and easy to compare. Half-measures can mislead or give unwarranted reassurance. The SRA has ramped up enforcement, issuing warnings, fines, and requiring formal compliance statements, which has focused minds. But it also highlights the challenge of balancing strict rules with workable application. Firms often say they're unsure how to frame info accessibly, and there's a narrow path between helpful clarity and overwhelming detail.

Crucially, flawless website adherence can't replace a central register. Firm disclosures are individual and self-managed; they lack an impartial overview of the market and don't readily highlight disciplinary issues or conditions. The Legal Services Board notes that despite gains, cross-sector differences still hinder easy navigation. In this way, transparency stays piecemeal.

Regulation under strain: lessons from failure

While transparency efforts show regulatory intent, recent breakdowns have laid bare weaknesses. The 2023 Axiom Ince collapse marked a turning point. Claims of tens of millions in missing client funds, followed by the abrupt shutdown of a major firm, stunned everyone involved. The damage hit clients, staff, and the broader sector hard.

Follow-up examination went beyond the firm. An LSB-commissioned independent review found the SRA hadn't done enough beforehand and overlooked chances to step in sooner. The conclusions were blunt: regulatory steps, or lack of them, had played a part in harming trust not just in one practice but across the system.

The LSB's reply broke new ground. It launched enforcement proceedings against the SRA itself, suggesting mandatory directions to force better supervision and risk handling. The signal was clear: even oversight bodies face consequences when lapses hurt public confidence.

The fallout has been wide. It reignited discussion on weighing proactive safeguards against measured regulation. The SRA's later consultation on client accounts, floating ideas like shifting to third-party managed accounts, aimed to close weak spots. But the profession pushed back strongly. Bodies representing lawyers argued the shifts might raise costs, upend standard operations, and limit access to justice, all without solid proof they'd stop wrongdoing.

The clash shows a classic regulatory bind. Failures trigger calls for firm action. Yet sweeping changes risk being seen as overreach or poorly justified. Trust relies on both alertness and sound decision-making.

Oversight, enforcement, and ethical culture

Outside structural tweaks, today's regulatory climate stresses ethics and responsibility more than ever. Major scandals, from the Post Office Horizon cases to heavy-handed litigation and NDA abuse, have heightened awareness of ethical shortcomings. Though these involve few lawyers, they damage perceptions disproportionately.

Regulators have bolstered their toolkit. The SRA's fining authority has grown, letting it settle more matters short of the Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal. Ministers have indicated room for more. Supporters say this brings faster, fairer outcomes. Detractors warn of too much power in one place without adequate checks.

Alongside tougher enforcement, focus has shifted to building ethics over time. Parliamentary reviews have flagged weak post-qualification ethics training. While entry-level education covers core duties, no consistent ongoing requirement exists. In a field dealing with fast tech shifts, business pressures, and changing norms, that shortfall looks harder to justify.

A consensus is building that ethics must be lifelong, not a qualifying box-tick. Ideas include required CPD on ethics, regular refreshers on court and client duties, and stronger focus on firm culture. Here, ethics covers not just personal wrongdoing but the structures and rewards influencing conduct.

Firms are being urged to step up. Ethical risks are now viewed like financial or reputational ones, something boards and leaders must own, not pass off. New cross-sector groups and ethics taskforces signal shared ownership.

Structural change and external pressures

Reform doesn't happen in a vacuum. Political and economic forces are altering the terrain. The move to hand anti-money laundering supervision for lawyers to the Financial Conduct Authority marks a big change. Presented as cutting overlap and improving efficiency, it also shows doubts about scattered oversight. Centralisation here is both pragmatic and telling.

This prompts wider questions about legal regulation's shape ahead. If AML can consolidate, could other areas follow? What happens to professional regulators' independence? How do you align duties to prevent holes or clashes? These touch the core of accountability distribution and how it's viewed.

Looking abroad helps. Other places have tried deregulation, openness, and new models, with varied success. England and Wales stand out for the scale of their setup, not the problems. The Legal Services Act tried to balance competition, consumer safeguards, and professional standards. The real work now is making that framework perform as intended.

Implications for the profession

Law firms and in-house teams face straightforward takeaways. Transparency duties are central compliance issues, not add-on PR. Building ethical culture takes real commitment, leadership, and candour. Risk handling needs to be forward-looking. Keeping up with regulatory shifts is essential, especially with more assertive oversight.

Opportunities exist too. Genuine transparency builds trust and sets quality apart. Strong ethical stance draws talent and clients. A profession that proves accountability bolsters its case for self-governance.

Conclusion: trust as a shared responsibility

Legal regulation in England and Wales will ultimately be measured by the trust it inspires, not the neatness of its structures. Delayed transparency equals lost trust. Rare ethical breaches echo loudly. Oversight lapses undermine legitimacy just as much as individual failings.

But this isn't a tale of steady decline. Progress, self-examination, and change are underway. The test for 2026 onward is turning intent into reality. The Legal Services Register needs to launch properly. Transparency rules should evolve into true consumer power. Ethics must become an ongoing reality.

Trust isn't won with words. It comes from steady performance, skill, and honesty. The profession has the resources, people, and heritage to rise to this. Success, or not, will shape not just regulation but law's place in society.

Copyright & permissions