The past 18 months have seen intense activity, as the Regulatory Affairs Board and Law Society policy teams have responded constructively to the programme of change proposed by the Solicitors Regulation Authority and challenges from the market.

We had been campaigning for the SRA to move to a more proportionate and less prescriptive approach to practitioner regulation and so supported their review of the regulatory framework. However, scrutinising the output of that review - outcomes-focused regulation - has proved a difficult task.

In lobbying for changes, we have sought to balance freeing up solicitors from unnecessary and prescriptive rules, with ensuring clarity for solicitors about compliance. Our responses provide important feedback. Importantly, we can work with the SRA to try to resolve these concerns. The 2011 changes with regard to professional indemnity insurance (PII) reflect that co-operative approach.

Our PII committee developed proposals to meet the challenges that threatened the future of the existing arrangements. Specifically, the assigned risks pool (ARP) is an uncertain liability for insurers that inflates the premiums of the entire profession.

Our proposals won support from the insurance market and led the SRA to adopt a new model in its April policy statement. We consider that a requirement for existing insurers to provide a policy extension to firms unable to obtain insurance will promote a better market, with more insurers willing to write business without the concern that their market share results in greater ARP liability.

We witnessed some benefit from this renewal as new insurers entered the market, significantly reducing the number of ARP firms. We are responding to the SRA’s second-stage consultation.

Our education and training committee has reviewed existing policies in preparation for the current review and we are about to start a period of engagement with the profession to ensure that our policies are representative of its needs.

As noted above, we have had reservations about the SRA’s new approach and also old policies carried over to the new regime. A number of areas have been considered by our rules and ethics committee, including conflicts of interest, referral fees and the separate business rules.

A key concern has been the outcomes relating to acting for buyers, sellers and lenders. While lobbying by the board and the conveyancing and land law committee has led to amendment around these issues in the non-mandatory parts of the code, we believe this is an area where bright-line rules are needed to protect the public and provide certainty.

The focus is turning to enforcement issues, and our regulatory process committee is alert to the potential inconsistencies that can arise from the dual obligations of entity and personal regulation. Historic concerns also remain, such as the publication of solicitors’ regulatory records.

We have always recognised that publishing some information is in the public interest, but we continue to have serious concerns about the application of the public-interest test by the SRA in relation to timing and content of publication. The Legal Ombudsman’s recent decision on the publication of complaints records is disappointing. We have lobbied through two consultations for a balanced and fair approach that does not unnecessarily prejudice firms. We will continue our efforts to mitigate this decision.

The SRA will rely upon its new risk assessment centre to inform its approach to supervision. Experience gained over the first year will doubtless shape changes. To implement the risk-based approach, the SRA will require more data from firms and we are concerned about any additional burden on the profession. For this reason, we are urging the SRA to ensure that benefits from collecting data outweigh the cost, and that the profession is consulted in time to ensure that what the regulator asks for is practical.

We are monitoring the cost and impact of the new SRA approach on all types of firm and practitioner. We are however optimistic that existing firms will adapt well. We have engaged with the Legal Services Board consultation considering extending reserved legal activities. We are supportive of the SRA approach to better definition of the legal services landscape.

Michael Garson is chair of the Law Society’s Regulatory Affairs Board