A painful divorce

When it comes to heavyweight reviews of legal services regulation, I count myself a connoisseur. Lord Hunt of Wirral, Nick Smedley, Stephen Mayson – the Ministry of Justice itself, indeed. Et cetera ad nauseam.

These and other scholarly tomes, dwelling on the impact and alleged shortcomings of the Legal Services Act 2007, sit mouldering on the shelf. Yet the ‘settlement’ enshrined in the act endures still. Perhaps because it works passably well. Or at least is not so dysfunctional as to warrant the time, effort and political capital necessary for another comprehensive makeover.

Even so, the settlement remains an issue that never really goes away. Witness the remarkable brinkmanship of the Chartered Institute of Legal Executives. CILEX is seeking to divorce its own regulator, CILEx Regulation Ltd, and get hitched to the Solicitors Regulation Authority.

Many questions suggest themselves, not all of which have yet been answered satisfactorily. To what extent were CILEX members consulted on this proposed reform? How much it will cost them? Are they prepared for the level of direct oversight and intervention attendant upon the oversight of the SRA? Suffice to say the solicitors’ regulator is not without its critics – just read the Gazette message boards. How many legal executives actually know the SRA can now act as prosecutor, judge and jury, and slap its regulatory community with £25,000 fines?

Missing is any sense of a clear or stated strategic objective. What are the specific risks and opportunities for CILEX members in their careers and day-to-day work? What is the coveted prize for swapping a relatively weak regulator with a relatively strong one? Parity of esteem?

Of course, none of the specific policy proposals mentioned by CILEX president Matthew Huggett necessarily requires a change of regulator. If CILEX is unhappy with CILEx Regulation Ltd, then why has it not campaigned to improve the watchdog’s performance?

Then there is the issue of relative status and Huggett’s allegation of ‘elitism’ among solicitors. It is not illegitimate per se to debate what legal executives should be allowed to do. CILEX seems to want to close that debate down. Well it would, wouldn’t it.