House of Commons Justice Committee calls for review of Legal Services Board

Mission creep by the Legal Services Board is among the concerns raised by an influential group of MPs following an investigation into legal services regulation. 

In a letter to the lord chancellor made public today, the House of Commons Justice Committee says the Legal Services Act 2007 'does not appear to provide a stable long-term framework'.

On the role of the super-regulator, the committee notes that witnesses raised concerns about the LSB’s 'wide-ranging' remit. 'It is unclear to us whether the LSB is capable or equipped to tackle all of these sector wide challenges,' the letter states. 'For example, the challenge of “reforming the justice system and redrawing the regulatory landscape” does not seem to be something that either the LSB alone or the LSB and the regulators can themselves achieve.'

The letter recommends a review of the LSB. It also formally requests that the chair of the LSB be subject to pre-appointment scrutiny by the committee to ensure the post holder acts, and is seen to act, independently of ministers and the government.

In its investigation, the committee held evidence sessions with the Bar Council, Bar Standards Board, CILEX (Chartered Institute of Legal Executives), CILEx Regulation, the Law Society, Solicitors Regulation Authority (SRA) and Legal Services Board. 

In a summary of its conclusions, it also said:

• 'The Post Office Horizon scandal will inevitably have damaged the public’s perception of the legal professions. It is imperative that the public can see that the regulatory framework is robust and responsive enough to identify and punish egregious breaches of regulatory standards.'
• 'The Legal Services Act 2007 does not appear to provide a stable long-term framework for the regulation of the legal professions. The committee is concerned by the amount of discord and disfunction between the approved regulators, the regulatory bodies and the LSB. We recognise that there is relatively little appetite in the sector for far-reaching regulatory change, however, it is undeniable that the case for re-examination of the legislative framework underpinning regulation is growing stronger and stronger.'
• On proposals by CILEX, 'We are sceptical of the argument that re-delegation and the proposed change to the titles of CILEX lawyer, from Chartered Legal Executive to Chartered Lawyer, would represent a simplification that would help consumers.'
• The committee also calls on the Law Society and the SRA 'to take a proactive approach to the needs of in-house lawyers and to demonstrate that they understand the challenges they face at present'. 
• 'The BSB should consider whether greater institutional independence could also help to facilitate improvements in its effectiveness as a regulator.'

Committee chair Sir Bob Neill said: 'It is clear from the written and oral evidence the committee received during the course of its work into the regulation of the legal professions that there has been a great deal of change since the Legal Services Act 2007 came into force. The success of the legal services in England and Wales should not deter the government from examining the problems with the current regulatory framework.'

The Law Society said it will 'carefully consider' the recommendations. However chief executive Ian Jeffery warned against 'regulatory tinkering'. The Society 'believes the regulatory framework overall is stable and functions effectively', Jeffery said.  'The focus of regulators and professional bodies alike should be on ensuring the framework created by the LSA works effectively.'

On the regulation of CILEX lawyers, Jeffery said: 'We support the committee’s view that CILEX’s proposals to change the titles of CILEX lawyers is unnecessary.'

Meanwhile the Society has already started new work to support members, including setting up an in-house solicitors’ network to provide opportunities to exchange best practice, guidance and peer-to-peer support, Jeffery said. 

This article is now closed for comment.