​Regulation row: Defiant CILEX chief attacks profession’s ‘elitism’

The president of CILEX has defended the organisation’s controversial plan to transfer regulation of 20,000 legal executives to the Solicitors Regulation Authority. Writing for the Gazette, Matthew Huggett hits out at the ‘elitism’ of the legal profession, reasserting the organisation’s determination to establish parity of esteem and practice with solicitors and barristers.

CILEX will present proposals to its board on the viability of delegation to the SRA this autumn, says Huggett. The solicitors’ regulator has already agreed to talks. However, a number of legal executives have contacted the Gazette to voice discontent over the plan, unhappy that they were not consulted. 

CILEX will also ‘consider any proposals’ received from existing regulator CILEx Regulation (CRL) to revise its regulatory model in line with the institute’s strategy. As the Gazette reported last week, CRL has threatened legal action against CILEX, arguing that the transfer would breach the 2007 act which created the present regulatory settlement.

Says Huggett: ‘Our strategy is focused on improving the justice system, members’ working environment, career opportunities and awareness of the CILEX brand. We are proud that 76% of our members are women, 16% come from an ethnic minority and 84% attended state schools. Yet we have to fight against the social, educational and professional elitism that even today defines attitudes in many of those who operate in the legal sector. Sadly, that professional elitism is all too clear to see on the Gazette comments board, which does the legal profession no favours.’

Huggett also alludes to further strategic imperatives on which he believes the ‘government is minded to take action’. These include: enabling CILEX advocates to apply to be full Crown prosecutors without the need to cross-qualify as solicitors; granting higher rights of audience to CILEX lawyers; and permitting direct applications from legal executives to higher-tier tribunal positions in the judiciary.

This article is now closed for comment.