Martin Partington: Spotlight on the Justice System

Keeping the English Legal System under review

Posts Tagged ‘legal services board

The state of legal services in England and Wales: new report from the Legal Services Board, 2020

leave a comment »

A second report on legal services which was published towards the end of 2020 is that by The Legal Services Board. Entitled The State of Legal Services 2020, the Board reflects on some of the Board’s achievements over the past 10 years sinceit began its work, which it argues have contributed improvements in the provision of legal services. The Board cites, in particular, the creation of new forms of legal service arising from the use of Alternative Business Structures; users of legal services reporting greater satisfaction with the services they receive; and providers coming to see that professional regulation does not create the barriers to innovation in the provision of legal services that was sometimes though to be the case.

However, the Board is clear that there is still much to be done. Their Report notes that::

  • 3.6 million adults in England and Wales have an unmet legal need involving a dispute every year
  • More than 1 in 3 adults (36%) have low confidence that they could achieve a fair and positive outcome when faced with a legal problem
  • Nearly nine in ten people say that “law is a game in which the skilful and resourceful are more likely to get what they want”

While many are concerned about reductions in the scale and scope of legal aid and increased pressure on third sector advice agencies, other factors also contribute.

  • Many people and businesses lack the capability and confidence to recognise legal problems and get help.
  • Comparison websites and customer review sites are not well established.
  • Only 30% of consumers shop around, and only 2% use a comparison service before choosing a law firm.

The Covid-19 pandemic has created challenges for both the profession and people who need legal services. Many are concerned that it has made existing social inequality starker. The pandemic has made the need for services that meet the needs of society more urgent.

To meet these challenges, the Legal Services Board has started a consultative process to develop a strategy – to be published in 2021 – for the next 5 years to address these concerns. The Board has decided that this strategy should be based on the following principles

  • Fairer outcomes – widening public access to advice and support and ensuring that no one has a worse outcome or quality of service due to their background or life circumstances. The sector must also build a more inclusive culture which enables anyone to enter the law and achieve their full career potential.
  • Stronger confidence – resolving long-standing questions around the scope of regulation and broadening access to redress. It also requires regulators to put the right mechanisms in place so that legal professionals deliver consistently competent and ethical legal services.
  • Better services giving consumers the information and tools they need to drive stronger competition, creating the right conditions for providers – including those yet to enter the market – to redesign legal services that respond to their needs. It also entails regulators fostering responsible innovation that commands the trust of both the public and legal professionals.

The LSB has also commented on the Competition and Markets Authority report published in December as follows:

“The CMA’s findings echo the conclusions of our recently published State of Legal Services 2020 report. Although pricing information given to people who need legal services is more transparent, price competition is still weaker than we would wish to see. The range of prices offered by different providers for the same legal service hasn’t yet narrowed in the way we would have expected. There hasn’t been any progress on developing indicators that would enable consumers to assess the quality of providers. Although more people are shopping around for legal services, this trend has not accelerated since the CMA’s study in 2016.

“Regulators and providers can do much more to improve competition in the legal services sector and to make it easier for people who need legal advice to find and compare services that meet their needs and make informed decisions.”

As I have noted in other contexts, the challenge for the regulatory bodies is to know how to transform these aspirations for improvements in the provision and delivery of legal services into practical effect. One thing that it may be necessary for the regulators to do is to indicate more clearly how they see current business models, used by those providing legal services, being developed so that practitioners can continue to be both commercially successful and the providers of legal services needed by the public. Without assistance, busy practitioners may not have the time or energy to think about doing things differently – especially those who are finding the current demands of practice overwhelming.

The LSB Report is available at https://www.legalservicesboard.org.uk/state-of-legal-services-report-2020. This links to the full report and evidence taken from those consulted by the Board.

The LSB comments on the CMA report are at https://www.legalservicesboard.org.uk/news/lsb-response-to-the-cmas-market-study-review.

Regulating the legal profession in England and Wales – new report from the Competition and Markets Authority

leave a comment »

Just before Christmas 2020, two important reports were published about how the legal professions in England and Wales should become more competitive and do more to meet unmet legal need.

I consider first a report from the Competition and Markets Authority which, on Dec 17 2020, published findings from its assessment of the impact of its earlier legal services market study in England and Wales. The CMA’s assessment of changes so far made in the legal services sector found some positive developments but concludes that further progress is needed.

The CMA recommends that the Legal Services Board, working with other regulators in the sector, continues to build on the reforms made so far to improve transparency of information that can help consumers make informed choices. It also states that the LSB must address some aspects of the market study recommendations that still require progression, such as providing more information on quality.

Alongside this, the CMA repeats its call for the Ministry of Justice to undertake a review of the Legal Services Act 2007. This seems unlikely to be progressed in the short term. The CMA is broadly supportive of Professor Mayson’s Review of Legal Profession regulation which was published earlier in 2020.

In the meantime, the CMA advocates that the Ministry of Justice and the Legal Services Board take some shorter-term steps which will deliver regulatory reform in stages.

These are that:

• The MoJ should create, or empower the creation of, a mandatory public register for unauthorised providers of legal services.
• The LSB should carry out a review of the reserved activities.
• The LSB should evaluate the impact of the revised Internal Governance Rules (designed to ensure adequate separation of the regulators’ representative and regulatory functions) before deciding on further action.

While the legal profession as a whole may not regard this report as an entirely welcome Christmas present, it seems clear that the CMA intends to keep up the pressure on the legal profession. More forward-thinking practitioners may however feel that a positive response to the report’s recommendations could create opportunities for developing new ways of working that will benefit both their bottom lines and society more broadly.

I noted Professor Mayson’s report (and his summary of it) at https://martinpartington.com/2020/06/11/legal-services-regulation-the-final-report/

The CMA report is available at https://www.gov.uk/cma-cases/review-of-the-legal-services-market-study-in-england-and-wales#review-report

I will comment on a new report from the Legal Services Board in a separate item.

Solicitors’ Qualifying Examination – starting 2021

leave a comment »

After many years of gestation, at the end of October 2020 the Legal Services Board gave its approval to proposals for the new Solicitors’ Qualifying Examination, due to come into force in September. It will only apply to students starting their legal studies after that date. Those currently reading law or in legal training will have 11 years to complete their route to qualification – using the existing channels.

In outline, the Solicitors Qualifying Examination (SQE) is a single, national licensing examination that all aspiring solicitors will take before qualifying. From 1 September 2021 to qualify you will need to:

  • have a degree in any subject (or equivalent qualification or work experience – for exampe through an apprenticeship);
  • pass both stages of the SQE assessment – SQE1 which focuses on legal knowledge and SQE2 on practical legal skills;
  • have two years’ qualifying work experience (which can be undertaken in up to 4 different locations and at different times); and
  • pass the SRA’s character and suitability requirements.

The SRA’s two stated objectives for the new framework are:
• greater assurance of consistent, high standards at the point of admission
• the development of new and diverse pathways to qualification, which are responsive to the changing legal services market and promote a diverse profession by removing artificial and unjustifiable barriers.

All new entrants – even those with law degrees – will have to pass both the SQE1 and SQE2. Current arrangements – whereby students who read law at university gain exemption from Part 1 of the Law Society Finals – are abolished.

The SRA will not regulate, accredit or endorse training providers or organisations. Nor will it have any role in approving, endorsing or overseeing the training courses or materials, or their quality. It merely provides a list of providers which is intended to help potential SQE candidates to find training. By encouraging competition between providers, the SRA hopes that the costs of such courses will be reduced.

SQE1 involves a test on the application of Functioning Legal Knowledge by answering two 180 question multiple choice assessments papers.

SQE2 involves assessment of practical legal skills listed as: client interviewing with linked attendance note/legal analysis; attendance note/legal analysis; advocacy; case and matter analysis; legal research and written advice; legal drafting and legal writing.

In granting its approval, the Legal Services Board recognises that this will be a new scheme that will not be entirely risk free. Thus the LSB has drawn attention to a range of issues that the SRA will need to manage carefully to realise the full benefits of the changes. The SRA has undertaken to:

  1. Monitor and evaluate the impact of the SQE and conduct an initial review within two years of implementation.
  2. Commission independent research in 2021 to investigate the underlying reasons that candidates from some protected minority groups did not perform as well as other groups in the SQE pilots. The results of the first cohort of the SQE will inform this research.
  3. Publish comprehensive guidance on qualifying work experience for candidates and firms.
  4. Continue to demonstrate openness and transparency as it implements the SQE. This includes publishing guidance for students on the different choices of SQE training available and data on performance in SQE assessments, as well as pass rates for candidates by the SQE training provider that they attended.

The hoped-for benefits for the new scheme are that:

  • costs will be less than existing routes to qualification;
  • a more diverse range of people will enter the profession;
  • those coming new to the profession will be better prepared for work as a solicitor.

What is unknown is whether law firms will recruit from those with different educational backgrounds or practical experience and therefore whether these new requirements will increase diversity in the solicitors’ profession.

Details of the scheme are at https://www.sra.org.uk/students/sqe/

The LSB decision is at https://www.legalservicesboard.org.uk/news/legal-services-board-approves-significant-changes-to-how-solicitors-qualify

Legal services regulation: the Mayson report

with one comment

This is an important report on the need to rethink the approach to the regulation of legal services and those who provide them. The author Stephen Mayson has summarised his report on his blog. I reproduce what he wrote here, with his permission.

 

StephenMayson

After two years, my final report of the Independent Review of Legal Services Regulation haas been published.  It is available for download from this site and from UCL.

In 2016, the Competition & Markets Authority completed its market study and concluded that the legal services sector is not working well for individual consumers and small businesses, and that the current regulatory framework under the Legal Services Act 2007 is not sustainable in the long run.  One of its recommendations was that the government should undertake a review of the current regulatory framework.

In light of Brexit, the Ministry understandably did not feel able at the time to commit to a formal review.  In July 2018, I therefore volunteered to undertake the Independent Review on a pro bono basis under the auspices of the Centre for Ethics & Law, in the Faculty of Laws at University College London.

View original post 1,279 more words

Written by lwtmp

June 11, 2020 at 11:38 am

Innovation and the use of technology in the provision of legal services

leave a comment »

The Legal Services Board has just (November 2018) published its latest detailed picture of levels of innovation and use of technology in legal services in England and Wales.

This report looks at the attitudes of legal services providers, sets out the benefits from innovation and considers the perceptions of the main enablers, including the impact of regulation.  The headline findings are:

  • the legal sector makes use of a variety of technologies but the use of services such as Blockchain or predictive analytics are, as yet, rare
  • overall levels of service innovation are unchanged since the first wave of the research three years ago
  • ABS, newer providers and larger providers have higher levels of service innovation.

Although putting a positive spin on the outcomes of the survey, I cannot help thinking that the LSB may actually be rather disappointed at the outcomes of the survey – given all the talk that there has been about the importance of innovation and new technologies.

My impression is that change is happening, but that it will much longer for the full benefits claimed for the use of new technologies to be realised in practice.

You can read the full report at https://www.legalservicesboard.org.uk/news_publications/LSB_News/PDF/2018/20181128_Innovation_Driven_By_Competition_And_Less_Hindered_By_Regulation.html

 

 

 

 

‘Looking to the future’ – proposals for regulatory changes from the Solicitors’ Regulation Authority

leave a comment »

In June 2018, the Solicitors Regulation Authority published its Looking to the Future reforms which include a range of changes to how it regulates solicitors. In outline, they are

Shorter, simpler rules and standards

  • A shorter, more accessible Handbook – focussing on the behaviours and principles that support high professional standards.
  • A separate Code of conduct for solicitors and one for firms.

Greater flexibility for solicitors and firms

  • Opportunities for solicitors to provide ‘reserved legal activities’ on a freelance basis, in certain circumstances. They will need to have at least three years’ experience, appropriate indemnity insurance, and will not be able to hold client money.
  • Opportunities for solicitors to do non-reserved legal work in a business not regulated by us or another legal services regulator. They will be bound by our solicitors’ Code.
  • In both instances, solicitors will need to be clear with prospective clients about the protections they bring.
  • Our new, simpler rules will also give firms greater flexibility to make decisions about how they work, helping to make doing business easier.

Simpler Accounts Rules more focused on keeping client money safe

  • Less prescriptive Accounts Rules which focus less on technicalities, and more on issues directly linked to keeping client money safe.
  • Providing a definition of ‘client money’ which maximises the need to protect the public while not placing unnecessary burdens on firms.

Improving clarity on when we take action

  • Our new enforcement strategy will provide greater clarity for the public and profession about when and how we would – or would not – take action against a solicitor or law firm.
  • It will also help us focus on the most serious matters.

Better information on price

  • All regulated firms will need to publish price information for the public and small businesses for seven types of legal services.
  • This includes conveyancing, employment tribunals and probate.

Better information about protections

  • SRA-regulated firms will be expected to display an SRA digital badge on their websites, which will provide a direct link to information on the protections their regulated status gives customers.
  • A modern digital register that will help people more easily find core information about who we regulate.

The proposals are currently with the Legal Services Board. The SRA hopes that the proposals on the publication of price information will come into effect in the autumn of 2018; the rest during 2019. They are at least in part a response to the Competition and Markets Authority Report on competition in legal services published at the end of 2016.

One of the most interesting proposals is that solicitors should be able to work in contexts other than solicitors’ offices, which may create opportunities for the development of new types of legal service work.

For further information see https://www.sra.org.uk/sra/policy/future/looking-future-reforms-summary.page from which this entry has been adapted.

 

 

 

 

 

Written by lwtmp

October 14, 2018 at 2:47 pm

Research into Alternative Business Structures: the Legal Services Board

leave a comment »

Since licensing began in 2011 there have been 950 ABS licences issued. As of March 2017 there were 892 active licences.  In April 2017, the Legal Services Board published a significant report into ABS. It sought to address 4 questions, which I have adapted from the report and which I try to summarise here:

1.What kind of investment activity has there been in ABS?

These businesses are predominantly existing legal service businesses converting to ABS status, with one in five respondents to our survey being new firms. Three fifths of ABS have less than 50% non-lawyer ownership. Just under one in five ABS are wholly owned by non-lawyers, with a similar proportion being fully owned by lawyers but having some proportion of non-lawyer managers….

The research shows that the majority of ABS firms (66%) either have already invested or are planning to do so, since they gained their ABS licence. These investments have mainly been made to hire more staff, increase marketing activity or to purchase IT. The LSB sees this as evidence of the increased scale that allowing non-lawyer ownership was designed to enable.

2.Is the market attractive to all sources of finance?

The survey shows ABS firms accessing a wide range of sources of finance, and only a small proportion of ABS indicating difficulties in accessing finance. The most frequent source of funding for investments was business profits or cash reserves which were used by 49% of those who had invested in their business. Just over a quarter of investments were solely funded us ing a loan from a bank, and a quarter were solely funded using the business’ overdraft facility.

External sources of equity finance accounted for only a minority of investment funding sources either as the sole or joint source of investment funds, and only 12% of ABS had used any form of external finance. Partnerships are more likely to use debt funding for finance, with 55% using loans or overdrafts, but none had used external investment. Companies limited by guarantee had the highest proportionate use of any form of external funding, with 24% issuing shares, investment from private equity, or becoming a subsidiary of another company.

3. What do investors think of the legal services market?

According to the investors interviewed, the legal sector is seen as a ‘sleepy’ market with opportunities for investors to grow their investment capital by improving efficiency within the business itself. They appear to have concerns about the ability to exit the legal sector once their investment has matured, although there are some examples of private equity investors having sold on their investment and exited the sector.

Except perhaps in the personal injury sector, it would appear that bank lending is a substitute for external capital. For the firm this means they do not have to cede ownership control of part of their business. In addition, there is a view that many firms do not present financial information in the ways investors expect and/or have a weak grasp of the value of their businesses.

This might explain the investor’s perspective of the legal sector as being reluctant to seek investment from private equity firms, and reports of investors struggling to find appropriate firms in which to invest. While the overall size of the market and the scale of businesses operating may limit opportunities for some investors, the LSB thinks that cultural norms, governance, and non-commercial financial management practices in some businesses are likely to be more important factors.

4. Are there any regulatory barriers to investment?

Only 6% of ABS identified some aspect of legal services regulation that prevented them accessing finance. Nor does the cost of legal services regulation appear to be a barrier… However there is anecdotal evidence of some areas of regulation causing concern to investors. These includes restrictions on ownership and picking up liabilities for historic complaints and insurance claims.

Only 1.5% of ABS identified some aspect of wider regulation that prevented them accessing finance. The regulatory barriers to investment cited by the investor and investment consultant we spoke to relate mainly to wider regulatory and governmental activity, particularly in relation to personal injury reforms

Conclusion:

The potential link between investment and enabling better access to legal services is well–rehearsed elsewhere. However, investment remains an under-explored area of research and generally licensing authorities have not used their data to understand trends in investment and financing. [Overall it may be concluded that] levels of innovation are not increasing.

The dynamics of competition create incentives for suppliers to increase productivity through innovation, which lowers costs and hence prices through time. This is likely to involve taking a different approach to delivering a service, or developing new services completely. In the absence of strong competition, there is insufficient impetus for law firms to take the greater risks (and rewards) involved with using external capital.

Until these incentives change the LSB thinks there is unlikely to be significant growth in the use of external capital by ABS firms.

The report can bee seen at http://www.legalservicesboard.org.uk/news_publications/LSB_News/PDF/2017/20170613_LSB_publishes_investment_in_legal_services_research.html

Written by lwtmp

October 19, 2017 at 5:15 pm

Competition in Legal Services: new report

leave a comment »

The Competition and Market Authority Final Report on legal services was published in December. Its interim report was noted in this blog in July 2016.

The CMA found that competition in legal services for individual and small business consumers is not working as well as it might. In particular, there was a lack of digital comparison tools to make comparisons easier for consumers. Lack of competition meant some providers can charge higher prices when substantially cheaper prices are available for comparable services.

In response to these findings, the CMA set out a package of measures which challenges providers and regulators to help customers better navigate the market and get value for money. These changes were drawn up after discussions with key stakeholders, including the 8 frontline legal regulators, and will be overseen by the Legal Services Board, which will report on progress.

They include:

A requirement on providers to display information on price, service, redress and regulatory status to help potential customers. This would include publishing pricing information for particular services online (only 17% of firms do so at present).

Revamping and promoting the existing Legal Choices website to be a starting point for customers needing help, information and guidance on how to navigate the market and purchase services.

Facilitating the development of comparison sites and other intermediaries to allow customers to compare providers in one place by making data already collected by regulators available. At present only 22% of people compare the services on offer before appointing a lawyer.

Encouraging legal service providers to engage with feedback and review platforms to ensure that customers can benefit from the experience of others before making their choice.

Recommending that the Ministry of Justice looks at whether to extend protection from existing redress schemes to customers using ‘unauthorised’ providers.

In addition, the CMA considered the impact of legal services regulation on competition. The CMA found that whilst the current system is not a major barrier, it may not be sustainable in the long term. In particular, the framework is not sufficiently flexible to apply proportionate risk-based regulation which reflects differences across legal services which could harm competition. The CMA therefore also recommends that the Ministry of Justice reviews the current framework to make it more flexible and targeted at protecting consumers in areas where it is most needed.

The Legal Services Board has welcomed the report and announced that it will publish its response in due course. The Ministry of Justice response is also awaited.

For more detail https://www.gov.uk/government/news/cma-demands-greater-transparency-from-legal-service-providers

Unregulated providers of legal services

leave a comment »

Not all legal services are provided by lawyers or legal executives who are regulated by their professional bodies. There is a group of legal service providers who are not authorised and regulated under any legal sector specific legislation, but who  are providing legal services for profit and as a significant focus of their work.

The Legal Services Board has recently (June 2016) published research on the work of this sector of the legal service market.  The research looked in detail at will-writing, online divorce and intellectual property.

The Key Findings of the research were:

  1. For profit unregulated providers make up a small proportion of the legal services market. In the individual legal needs survey, they represented 4.5-5.5% of cases in which consumers paid for advice or representation.
  2. In contrast, not for profit providers, most of whom will be unregulated, accounted for approximately 37% of all legal problems where advice was sought.
  3. Benefits for consumers include lower prices and greater price transparency compared to regulated providers, innovation and service differentiation, and competitive impact on regulated providers.
  4. The main risks to consumers relate to consumers not making informed choices and misleading advertising claims. The research did not assess the technical quality of work.
  5. Consumer satisfaction with customer service is broadly comparable across regulated and unregulated providers – 84% versus 81% respectively.
  6. More than half of consumers who instruct for profit unregulated providers are aware of their regulatory status. Of those who don’t check, a significant proportion do not do so because they assume that they are regulated.
  7. There is a limited potential market for voluntary regulation beyond existing trade associations given the size of the market and low appetite for such initiatives among providers.

For the time being, at least, the policy conclusions for the Legal Services Board are that

  1. The for profit unregulated sector is smaller than expected, although in some segments these providers have gained a significant market share.
  2. Based on the evidence of benefits and risks to consumers and limited potential market for voluntary regulation beyond existing trade associations, the LSB will monitor developments but will not pursue a voluntary arrangement under the Legal Services Act.
  3. Consumers should be encouraged to check whether or not providers are regulated.

In other words no active intervention for the moment.

Notwithstanding these broad conclusions, the research did look more closely at the work of for profit unregulated providers in three areas: will-writing; divorce; and intellectual property, where not insignificant amounts of legal services work was being undertaken by unregulated providers – around 10% of the work. The dominance in the area of divorce by 5 on-line companies offering very cheap services can be particularly noted.

My guess is that, so long as the unregulated sector provides cost-effective services, with which consumers are satisfied, the lack of regulation will continue. But if there is a highly publicised scandal, then the regulatory context will change.

For the research go to https://research.legalservicesboard.org.uk/wp-content/media/Economic-insight-in-depth-unregulated-research.pdf

Written by lwtmp

July 17, 2016 at 9:53 am

Regulating Alternative Business Structures

leave a comment »

One of the last Ministerial actions taken by Lord Faulks, before he decided to leave the Government, was to publish a very important consultation on how Alternative Business Structures (ABS) should be regulated.

On 30 November 2015, the Government published, ‘A Better Deal: boosting competition to bring down bills for families and firms’ which set out the Government’s approach to encouraging open and competitive markets, for the benefit of the UK economy and UK consumers. A key part of the Government’s approach is to ensure that the statutory frameworks underpinning regulatory regimes allow regulators to regulate in a way that is proportionate and promotes competition and innovation.

As the legal services market is not only an important contributor to the UK economy, but also to ensuring individuals’ and companies’ access to justice, the Government seeks to develop a strong, independent and competitive legal services market, which will promote consumer choice and quality services at lower prices, ensuring greater access to justice for all.

The Better Deal document included a pledge to consult on two particular matters:

  1. making changes to the regulatory framework for legal services to remove barriers to market entry, and regulatory burdens on, Alternative Business Structures in legal services, and
  2. making legal services regulators independent from professional representative bodies.

The second of these is delayed, pending the final report from the Competition and Markets Authority – about which I have written separately.

However on 7 July 2016, the Government published a Consultation Paper on what changes might be needed to the regulation of ABSs.

Background

Since 2010, when Alternative Business Structures were first licensed to provide legal services, over 600 ABS firms have entered the market. According to the Government:

The introduction of ABS businesses, particularly those that have access to external investment and business and commercial expertise, has benefited the market more widely. Recent research has indicated that ABS firms are more likely to be innovative than other regulated legal services firms. These new, innovative providers have increased competition in the market, which [the Government believes] encourages a wider variety of legal services in the market that are more accessible and affordable to consumers.

As a result of concerns raised at the time about the potential risks of new and unknown business models, the legislative framework for the regulation of ABS businesses, set out in the Legal Services Act 2007, is more onerous and prescriptive than that for traditional law firms.

Six years on, experience suggests that ABS businesses have not been shown to attract any greater regulatory risk than traditional law firms. In consequence,  the Legal Services Board and front-line regulators suggest that the current statutory requirements act as a deterrent and an unnecessary barrier to firms wanting to change their current business model to a more innovative one, as well as to new businesses considering entering the market.

The proposals

The proposals set out in the consultation aim to enable legal services regulators to reduce regulatory burdens on ABS, while taking a more effective risk-based approach to regulation. The proposals are very technical in nature. The following summary is set out in Legal Futures.

  • ABSs should not have to provide reserved legal activities from a practising address in England and Wales. The consultation said this restriction can prevent online businesses being licensed as ABSs, while traditional firms are not required to do reserved work.
  • ABS licensing authorities should be able to make their own rules around ABS ownership, in line with guidance to be provided by the LSB. The consultation said the current “inflexible” rules on which non-lawyers need to be investigated before assuming ownership of an ABS leads to unnecessary checks on some people who have no real control or influence over an ABS, but others who should be checked fall outside the definitions set out in the Act.
  • Abolishing the requirement to consider whether an ABS applicant explicitly meets the regulatory objective of improving access to justice. There is no equivalent on non-ABS firms or individuals, while all the regulators and licensing authorities are separately under an obligation to improve access to justice anyway. “We consider that this would save cost and time for applicants who wish to become an ABS as well as for regulators.”
  • Amend the Act so that heads of legal practice and of finance and administration (COLPs and COFAs in traditional firms) only have to report ‘material’ failures to comply with licensing rules, rather than ‘all’ failures as now. This would bring ABSs into line with non-ABS firms.

The Consultation runs until 3 August 2016.

For Lord Faulks Ministerial statement, see https://www.gov.uk/government/speeches/legal-services-regulation.

For the Consultation paper, go to https://consult.justice.gov.uk/digital-communications/legal-services-removing-barriers-to-competition

For the summary in Legal Futures go to http://www.legalfutures.co.uk/latest-news/government-lays-plans-encourage-abss-enter-market#