There is so so much to comment on here.
The SRA's autumn risk updates cites 140 reports of misuse of client funds or assets in EACH of July, August and September. But the wider purpose of the practice rules was to liberate. I agree that some of this is being progressively closed down and imposing greater burdens. You only have to read the update to appreciate that compliance officers are going to have to spend a great deal of time closing down all the 'risks'.
I also don't really understand all the glib talk that went behind the 2011 changes about enabling the provision of legal services in more accessible ways... what does this mean, in practice? - That we should have ground floor offices, open till 9 or 10pm? Internet? - the Government pulled the Land Registry initiatives and now we have the Law Society stepping in, at undisclosed cost.
I think the jury is still out but the indications look like some retrenchment. Which means more work.
The problem is the practice rules. Those of us who obey them tie our hands leaving those who don't a free run at things. You just can't stop someone who is determined to be dishonest and who has access to clients' monies.
In France all 'avocats' monies have to be paid into a court administered bank account and an officer of the court must approve all withdrawals. Are we just as untrustworthy? It seems as if a significant minority is.
Why the hate about the practice rules? You only have to look at cases such as Wolstenholmes - so far, £8m claims on the Compensation Fund and counting. It's probably too early to assess whether the 2011 changes have made any difference but why are people on here so willing to condemn without giving them a fair chance?
So you've asked me about that blog? Well here it is in summary form, but read it soon as it is sure to be taken down It was all about the new PPL cover you'll all have to have wef 1 April 12014. So what is this cover, you ask. Well it stands for the President's Plimsole Line. It flows from the Bog Standard Regulations 2013 which themselves are an attempt to get ahead of even Brussels in the matter of the volume of water solicitors' practices can use when they flash. The PPL is a line above which the water must not rise. So the President will make his mark permanently on the back of every solicitors' WCs. And to ensure compliance there will be an army of enforcers to be known as BSRCOs or BSRCOS Compliance Officers. They will comprise mainly ex-solicitors put out of business by the PPI Regulations and who after a period of intensive training will be empowered to descend upon any practice in the country to ensure compliance. On the first visit a warning will be issued and an indelible line, the notorious PPL, placed in every WC pan. But this will not be one of those paperless exercises as a hard copy record of such visits will have to be kept by both sides, failing which a penalty will be payable.
As if this brush with the SRA were not enough there will be a monitoring body the BSRCOMC which will come around checking up on the work of the BSRCOs. Finally the BSRCOs will, of course, have to carry insurance, to be known as BSRCOs PII in case they cause injury or even offence, which insurance will have to continue for 6 years' run off.
So well done, Mr. President you have got ahead of even Brussels in the PC world of WC trans-Europe compliance and made your mark on every solicitors' WCs in England and Wales. Welsh solicitors can of course call them the TyBach Stabdardisation Regulations and the Compliance Officers..... Well I think you have probably by now got my drift. The proverbial has at last hit the
, or should that be fan?
And there will of course be a fee payable to cover the cost of monitoring all this compliance and enforcement which with any luck will have the effect of putting out of business all those solicitors who have so far managed to renew their PCs and PPI insurance 2013/14.
Perhaps this illustrates a simple truth - that the public expect the cost of regulation to be defrayed from the fees they pay, just as you wouldn't expect to buy a house and be charged on top for the cost of obtaining all the planning and building regulation certificates that come with the property.
"In every area of law, a greater proportion of people felt professional regulation would protect them, even if they were not willing to pay for it."
My word what an amazing outcome! - Clients want the best and safest possible legal service but they don't want to pay for it - absolutely incredible enlightenment.
This research was clearly worth every penny it no doubt cost.
"Something is rotten in the state of the Law Society", to borrow from Marcellus. And if we all sit back and do nothing the cab rank principle won't just be a principle, it will become a reality and we shall all be cabbies.
Unsuitable or offensive? Report comment