The debate about which legal services should be regulated and which should not is not new. Over the years, reserved activities have been added in an ad hoc fashion and the result has been: confusion for consumers; firms being set up to undertake activities that are entirely unregulated with no redress for their clients when something goes wrong; and a complex and expensive regulatory framework.

Though well intentioned, the narrow debate on which activities should be reserved has not been helpful to the public whom we seek to protect. The public need is for clarity and simplicity, not for additional complication. It is our view that consumers should receive proper protection and right of redress for any legal service. We therefore believe that all legal services should be regulated, to provide better protection for consumers.

In our detailed response to the Legal Services Board’s recent consultation on the scope of regulation we have called for a fundamental review of the regulation of legal services in England and Wales, setting out our vision for a system which can offer greater consumer protection through a single, coherent and readily understood regulatory framework.

Our rationale is clear. We believe there are a number of fundamental problems with the current regulatory arrangements in England and Wales.

In particular:

  • A lack of clarity for consumers about which legal services are regulated and which are not;
  • A lack of consistent consumer protection and redress;
  • A lack of focus on quality, standards and ethical behaviour across all legal services; and
  • Increased regulatory cost in the system (which is ultimately borne by consumers) as a result of the large number of regulators with different regulatory remits, and the level of resource required to manage the interactions between them.

We do not believe that a review of the current reserved legal activities, on an activity-by-activity basis, will address the significant problems that the current system exacerbates. To use the analogy of a patchwork quilt, over the years patches have been added in an unplanned way, leaving holes where the interests of consumers have been allowed to fall through the net. A regulatory gap exists whereby consumers are only protected if they choose a regulated lawyer to carry out activities such as will-writing. Regulation and redress for those purchasing will-writing services only exists where those supplying the services are (like solicitors) regulated for other purposes.

Often consumers, when purchasing a legal service from an unregulated individual, have no idea they are not protected. Consumer research commissioned by the SRA demonstrated this point, with the public having little understanding of which legal services are currently regulated and which can be offered on a completely unregulated basis, such as will-writing.

This current system compromises consumer protection and overall confidence in the legal services market. The SRA supports the role that competition plays in benefiting consumers. Competition, however, is unlikely ever to be the sole answer to ensuring that the legal services market operates fully in the public interest.

The Legal Services Act 2007 brought about some significant improvements to regulation, particularly the liberalisation of the market, ensuing independent regulation and providing a single body (the Legal Ombudsman) to consider consumer complaints about the provision of regulated services. However, it has not simplified the structure of regulation.

It is our firm view that all legal services should be regulated, in the public interest and in the interests of consumers. We do not favour an approach, suggested by the Legal Services Board, which results in extending the list of regulated activities on a case-by-case basis, with numerous regulators each responsible for a narrow range of activities linked to a title (such as solicitor, barrister or legal executive). This will only lead to further confusion and complexity.

We hope that our response will encourage a new debate on the scope of regulation of legal services. We do accept that in the short term there is a case for the extension of reserved legal activities to include specific activities such as will-writing, while a wider review is undertaken.

  • The full copy of our response to the LSB’s consultation, Enhancing consumer protection, reducing regulatory restrictions, can be found at the SRA consultations page.

Charles Plant is chair of the board of the Solicitors Regulation Authority