As you may be aware, Professor Stephen Mayson, from the Centre for Ethics and Law at University College London, is conducting an Independent Review of Legal Services Regulation. Professor Mayson spoke at the seminar and said that a key issue he is considering is whether lawyers should be regulated by activity rather than title, with a separate regulator for each activity. This seeks to recognise that practicing law has become increasingly specialised and there have been new entrants to the market, who may not be Solicitors. As you can imagine, this has not been particularly well received by The Law Society! Professor Mayson is also suggesting a review of reserved and non-reserved activities moving, for example, will writing into the former category. He is also asking whether there is a need for specific re-accreditation of competence, in addition to CPD. Whilst conceptually, there was some support for these ideas from the delegates in the room, they do create practical issues. For example, representatives of high street firms were concerned at the prospect of dealing and complying with the requirements of a number of different regulators. An Interim Report was issued on 17 September 2019, in which Professor Mayson posed a number of questions and his final conclusions are due to be reported to the Ministry of Justice this year.
The move towards greater transparency of the service offerings and fees of law firms, following on from the Competition and Markets Authority’s study in 2016, continues to gather pace and there was a useful analysis of the current state of the market by Chris Jenkins, Economics Director at the CMA. The intentions are undoubtedly laudable but, it seems to me, that whilst marketing legal services in the same way as utilities, insurance, broadband etc and listing providers on comparison websites, is likely to drive down charges to consumers, it may also impact on the quality of the offering. Look what has happened with conveyancing, which is arguably the most competitive legal service line and gives rise to an increasing number of complaints and professional negligence claims.
The other hot topic discussed was “unmet legal need”, in other words access to justice for all. Whilst one can, and in my view should, encourage lawyers to be more approachable and break down some of the perceived barriers to accessing their services, the inescapable truth is that many people cannot afford legal services. This situation has been exacerbated by the restriction in eligibility for Legal Aid. As a consequence, it is often difficult for consumers to obtain legal advice or representation. I understand that this is causing severe problem for the courts, which are already under pressure, because litigants appearing in person, who are understandably unfamiliar with the court processes, are taking up more time, as judges strive to ensure a fair process. Ultimately, if the government is serious about meeting unmet legal need, it needs to revisit the entitlement criteria for Legal Aid.
I would urge you to keep a look out for these Westminster Legal Policy Forum legal seminars as they provide a useful insight into the direction of travel for the sector.
Andrew Alder, Chair of the Solicitors Advisory Group