BAR COUNCIL URGES MPS TO PUT CONSUMERS FIRST IN LEGAL SERVICES REFORM
4 June 2007
Today, as the Legal Services Bill receives its Second Reading in the House of Commons, the Bar Council is keen to emphasise the need to put consumers first in any changes to the current legal framework.
The Bar Council is in favour of the modernisation of legal services and believes that the Bill as presently formulated by the House of Lords benefits the consumer interest while also maintaining a strong and independent legal profession.
At the heart of the Bar's position is that proper regulation of the legal profession is needed to ensure that consumers and the wider public can be confident in the quality of the services they receive. In light of the Bill's consideration by the Commons this week the Bar Council is keen to make clear to MPs and users of legal services its position on a number of key issues:
Legal Services Board (Independence): The Bar Council believes that, to reinforce consumer confidence in the profession, it is vital that the proposed Legal Services Board (LSB), as the oversight regulator of legal services, is fully independent. It supports provisions in the Bill for appointments to the Board to be non-governmental and made by the Lord Chancellor with the concurrence of the Lord Chief Justice. Safeguarding the independence of the profession, through an independent Legal Services Board is essential in safeguarding the international reputation of the English legal profession.
Legal Services Board (Powers): The Legal Services Board (LSB) needs to have an effective range of powers over providers of legal services and front line regulators. But the Legal Services Board (LSB) should only intervene where there is some significant challenge to the regulatory objectives. Otherwise, the LSB would amount to a costly and unnecessary second tier of regulation.
Complaints’ Handling: By January 2006 the Bar Council had already responded to the recommendations of the report of Sir David Clementi into Legal Regulatory Frameworks through the establishment of the Bar Standards Board (BSB) which split the representational and regulatory aspects of the Bar Council's work. The Bar has been repeatedly commended by the Government and Legal Services Ombudsman for its strong performance in complaints’ handling, at no expense to the public. The Bar Council therefore believes it would be against the consumer interest not to provide the Office for Legal Complaints (OLC) with a discretion to delegate the investigation of complaints to approved regulators.
Alternative Business Structures: The Bar, in principle, has no objection to the development of Alternative Business Structures (ABSs). To protect the public and consumer interest, ABSs must be regulated by approved regulators, who should ensure that they do not diminish access to justice.
Costs: The Bar Council is concerned that, under the Bill, all costs of the new structure will fall on legal service providers. The Bar Council believes that the costs should be shared between the legal profession and the Government to avoid excessive costs being passed back to the users of legal services.
Commenting on the Bar's latest round of lobbying, Geoffrey Vos QC said:
'The Legal Services Bill is an important milestone in the future of the legal profession and the legal services market. The Bar Council has always supported the principles in the Bill, and has made far-reaching changes to its own governance in order to implement Sir David Clementi’s recommendations.
It is, however, crucial that our legal profession retains its reputation for independence here and abroad. It will only do so if the Legal Services Board is seen to be appointed independently from Government. The UK’s exports of legal services are too important to risk by blurring the clear mark of independence provided by the involvement of the Lord Chief Justice in the appointment of the Board.
As the Bill is considered by the Commons, we want to make sure that consumers are properly served by having their complaints against barristers dealt with by experts in the Bar Standards Board, with a veto by non-lawyers, at far less cost than would be the case if they were handled without delegation by the OLC.
We will make the strongest possible representations to ensure that the Bill which emerges reflects an independent legal profession, and allows the legal profession to develop for the benefit of the public and the users of legal services alike.'
