Selling off The Land Registry

/0 Comments/in , , , /by

Society President Jonathan Smithers said: “It’s no surprise to us that concern over the idea of selling off the Land Registry is growing – we’re talking about a vital piece of the national infrastructure,

“Whatever the political and ideological debates around privatisation, the Land Registry is not a commercial operation which can be easily privatised.  Placing the Land Registry in private hands presents unique challenges and risks, which would have to be addressed should any form of sale proceed.”

Major concerns raised by the Law Society in its submission to government included:

  • The vital role that public trust and confidence in the Registry plays in the smooth operation of the property market;
  • Privatisation could hinder efforts to combat the laundering of illicit funds through the property market in England and Wales;
  • The risk of fee increases to generate profits for private owners, at the expense of property buyers;
  • The loss of the potentially huge future value of the information held by the Registry; and
  • The great difficulties in ensuring a newly privatised natural monopoly couldn’t act in anti-competitive ways.

Jonathan Smithers continued: “Last week a debate in the House of Commons made it clear that these concerns are felt across the political spectrum.

“If these widely-held concerns are not carefully addressed, we fear that the public will be the real loser from any sale.

“With so many problems, costs and risks to the public to be carefully managed, it’s pleasing to hear the government say that they intend to listen to concerns raised during this consultation.

“Decisions on the future of the Land Registry should place the public interest in this vital institution first.”

New SRA Code will result in two tiers of Solicitors

/0 Comments/in , , /by

Chief executive Catherine Dixon said: “The SRA proposals will enable solicitors to work for unregulated entities providing unreserved legal activities to the public. This has serious implications for client protection, legal professional privilege, professional supervision, competition and the standing of the solicitor profession.

“The proposals could result in two tiers of solicitors – those working in a regulated entity and  those who are not – with different rules and protections applying to clients depending on where the solicitor is working.

“Advice from solicitors in unregulated entities may not be legally privileged, which means that the ability of the client to be candid with their solicitor without the risk that this information will be shared, may be lost. If part of the solicitor profession is unable to give legally privileged advice, this is a slippery slope which could erode legal privilege, a cornerstone of the justice system, and undermine the standing of the solicitor profession both at home and abroad.

“Also, solicitors working in unregulated entities may not be required to have professional indemnity insurance and may not be subject to the same conflict rules. Their clients may not have access to the compensation fund or the Legal Ombudsman.

“We are concerned that this will put clients at risk as they simply won’t know what protection they are getting when they instruct a solicitor.

“Changes to supervision requirements would mean that newly qualified solicitors with no experience would be able to set up their own unregulated firms. Newly qualified solicitors generally welcome the support and guidance from more experienced solicitors. If that’s not available it could place clients at risk as well as risking the standing of the solicitor profession.

“Also because the regulatory burden on solicitors working in regulated entities will be higher than on those who are not, this could result in unfair competition between providers of legal services which is not in the public interest.”

The SRA ‘s consultation Looking to the Future closes on 21st September. Implementation in Spring 2017

CMA interim report supports independent regulators

/0 Comments/in , , , /by

Competition and Markets Authority (CMA) produces interim report of the legal services market.

https://www.gov.uk/cma-cases/legal-services-market-study

“It is therefore possible that an alternative regulatory model may improve competition if it is successful in reducing the emphasis on regulatory titles.”

The CMA also came out in favour of the legal regulators having “full independence” from the providers they regulate.

Senior director for the legal services market study, Rachel Merelie, said: “Consumers in this market are often not equipped with the right information before they make important purchasing decisions – which often come at critical points in their lives…

“Without greater transparency, individual and small business consumers find it difficult to compare and choose providers of legal services. For many of them this is an infrequent purchase and a lack of experience or prior knowledge makes it very challenging to assess what represents good value.

“As a result, they tend to rely on recommendations from family or friends in choosing providers without checking for themselves what the market has to offer. This is unlikely to drive effective competition.

“The lack of competition may remove a crucial incentive for such firms to compete on price and quality as well as innovate and may help to explain why there have been long-standing concerns over the affordability and accessibility of legal services.”

Barristers must not think of CPD as a mere box ticking exercise

/0 Comments/in , , /by

Oliver Hanmer is director of supervision at the Bar Standards Board. He says in The Times that the BSB, the regulator, wants them to think carefully about learning and professional development needs. It wants to give them flexibility to undertake the right CPD for them; it is recognised that one size does not fit all, and that even the number of hours of CPD that barristers must undertake will vary.

The reasons for this are clear: all barristers are different and some will require more CPD than others. Therefore, the emphasis of the BSB’s updated scheme is to provide more flexibility.

It will mean that established barristers will be free to plan their own CPD activities, will have greater flexibility in the types of CPD activities they undertake, will not be subject to any compulsory or accredited activities, will not be subject to a minimum number of hours and will no longer need to apply for an extension of time or a waiver from CPD requirements.

It is expected that this change and the increased freedom it gives barristers will encourage innovation and competition among course providers of CPD, although that was not the primary object of the reforms.

Also, and importantly, barristers’ CPD will continue to be supervised. While the new regime will provide greater flexibility regarding the type and amount of CPD activities, it does not mean that barristers can completely avoid CPD.

Far from it; the BSB will continue to supervise barristers’ CPD, and persistent and deliberate non-compliance will result in enforcement action.

To help barristers prepare for the arrangements, the regulator is planning a series of events around the country later in the year. Details of these events will be published soon.

LSB review of regulation and reform

/0 Comments/in , , , /by

Law Society chief executive Catherine Dixon said: ‘We agree with the LSB that broadly speaking the legal regulatory system is working effectively. The system is relatively new and changes are still being embedded. 

‘We do have a vision for the future of legal services regulation and if there were to be a whole-scale and thoughtful review, we think that there is an opportunity for simpler and better regulation.

‘Currently we think the definition of regulation is too broad and should not include professional standards, legal education and training and entry into the profession and awarding the professional title of solicitor, which we think should sit with the profession that knows what good looks like and can drive higher standards.

‘This would leave the regulator to get on with setting independent regulatory rules that consistently apply to the legal services market. Simpler and better regulation would reduce costs while providing more consistent protection for consumers.’

She added that the solicitors’ profession ‘has a great track record of innovation and creativity in a changing market’.

Bar chairman Chantal-Aimée Doerries QC, said the report ‘contains some mixed messages’. 

While the LSB has identified innovations, the rise in ‘DIY justice’ is a concern. She also said that the report ‘fails to highlight the difference between barristers and other legal service providers, such as solicitors. Given the high volume of work carried out by barristers through the referral model, the report leaves a gap in its account of the legal services market today’.

Paul Philip, chief executive of the Solicitors Regulation Authority, said that the report showed ‘there is still a long way to go, particularly to improve choice and deal with the problem of unmet legal need. We believe that our reforms will increase access to high quality, affordable legal services by getting rid of unnecessary bureaucracy and further promoting competition’.

BSB to scrap continuing education for barristers

/0 Comments/in , , /by

Regulator to scrap continuing education for barristers 

Barristers will no longer have to complete a mandatory continuing professional education, if proposals from the profession’s regulator go ahead, it was announced yesterday.

The Bar Standards Board launched a consultation process that would see barristers fall in line with recent reforms to the solicitors’ professional development regime.

The move could more or less destroy what was a thriving business in legal profession update courses because, if it gets the green light, solicitors and barristers would in the future be allowed to self-certify that they are abreast of recent professional developments.

A board statement said that the proposed future regime would mean that barristers would be “free to plan their own continuing professional development activities”. As part of that liberalised programme, barristers will not be subject to any compulsory activities or to a minimum number of hours. And, said the board, barristers “will no longer need to apply for an extension of time or a waiver from their CPD requirements”.

The BSB’s director of supervision, Oliver Hanmer, announced a series of consultation meetings on the proposals around the country that will run until the beginning of September.

Two years ago, the Solicitors Regulation Authority radically reformed its CPD rules, effectively dropping all mandatory requirements.

SRA want independence from TLS and Bar separation from BSB

/0 Comments/in , , , , /by

Paul Philip told MPs that total independence from the Law Society was crucial. “Perception is everything,” he said. “It is all about public perception. And currently the public is confused over who we are. It is difficult to convince them that we are not part of the Law Society.”

Vanessa Davies, director-general of the Bar Standards Board, agreed with Philip that complete separation was necessary – from the Bar Council in her organisation’s case – if public trust and confidence in legal profession regulation were to be maintained.

23,000 and 30,000 people use online provider for divorce.

/0 Comments/in , , , /by

The research, which focused on unregulated providers for wills, divorce and intellectual property law, found that on average unregulated providers represent 5% of the paid advice given to address a legal problem.

The proportion was highest in family law, where unregulated providers represent between 10%-13% of the paid advice given.

The research found that unregulated providers offer lower prices on average than their regulated competitors, particularly for wills and divorce.

According to the report, solicitors on average charge £722 for an uncontested divorce compared to £36 to £172 from online divorce providers.

Meanwhile it noted that consumers value the fact that wills and estate administration providers typically conduct home visits.

The report also found that 81% of consumers who had used an unregulated provider were satisfied with the customer service, almost the same level as with regulated providers, where 84% of consumers said they were satisfied.

Pitt said: ‘It is however, very important that consumers make informed decisions to use unregulated providers. They will receive less protection than if using a regulated provider and it is of concern if they are accepting this without realising the lack of consumer protection.’

Legal professional bodies said that the LSB report understated the risks posed by unregulated providers.

Chantal-Aimee Dorries QC, chairman of the Bar Council, said: ‘It is a matter of concern that between 23,000 and 30,000 people, according to the LSB report, are using unregulated online providers when going through a divorce.

Using unqualified and insufficiently insured providers of advice in family matters, which will often involve children, instead of using the services of properly regulated professional lawyers, carries considerable risk for all concerned. Legal regulators must do more to warn consumers about the risks of using the wrong type of legal service provider – unregulated, not properly qualified or insured.’

Catherine Dixon fighting at Justice Committee for TLS

/0 Comments/in , , , /by

The Law Society today warned government that now is the ‘wrong time’ for a shakeup of legal services regulation – stressing that the profession will be focusing on supporting its clients through a period of unprecedented change in the wake of last week’s Brexit vote.

Speaking before giving evidence to the House of Commons Justice Committee, chief executive Catherine Dixon pledged that Chancery Lane would work with solicitors, clients, the public and government to support a ‘calm transition’ after the UK voted to leave the EU.

She alerted MPs to what she described as ‘the dangers of picking away at the finely balanced legal services sector when the sector, constitution and economy are going through a period of such unprecedented change’.

She also outlined some of the sectoral issues which will need to be addressed in the event that Article 50 is triggered.

These include: maintaining single market access; enabling solicitors to continue to practise across the EU; maintaining financial services passporting arrangements; ensuring the mutual recognition of judgments; maintaining extradition arrangements including the European Arrest Warrant; and maintaining England and Wales as the jurisdiction of choice, and the use of English and Welsh law across the globe.

The prospect of separation of the SRA and Law Society – along with other legal regulators from their representative bodies – was raised by the Treasury last year, with a consultation expected to be published this summer.

Dixon disagreed with her SRA counterpart Paul Philip during the evidence session over which body should ‘own’ professional standards, legal education and entry into the profession, and the awarding of the professional title of solicitor.

Practising fees to be reduced by 10%

/0 Comments/in , , , /by

Solicitors are in line for a near 10 per cent cut in their practising certificate fees, the profession’s joint governing bodies revealed on Friday.

 

“We have reduced the cost of our work very significantly since 2014 and we are committed to further reduction,” said Paul Philip, chief executive of the Solicitors Regulation Authority. “This underpins our wider reform programme, reducing bureaucracy and costs and helping to address the affordability and accessibility of legal services for the public.”

The setting of the practising certificate fee is wrapped up in the highly political relationship between the authority and the Law Society. The latter technically is the front line regulator but it is obliged by legislation to delegate all practical responsibility for regulation to the SRA.

It is understood that senior figures at the regulator are becoming increasingly frustrated for having to set a fee that also takes into account funding for the society’s representation and lobbying work.

The proposed 9 per cent cut to the next fee will go to a three-week consultation. A source at the regulator acknowledged that it would be extremely unlikely that any practising solicitor would object to the cut – however, plenty might suggest that the reduction should be larger.