Peter Williamson considers the implications of the Legal services bill and outlines the benefits it will offer for both clients and solicitors


When the Queen opened Parliament, the Legal Services Bill was not deemed important enough to be mentioned in her speech. Many parliamentarians are liable to find it ‘technical’ and to play no part in its passage. Only legal journalists are likely to write about it.



Many lawyers are, I suspect, hazy about its provisions. But mark my words: years hence, people will say the passing of the Legal Services Bill was a turning point in the relationship between lawyers and those they serve.



Although we should like to see a few aspects of the Legal Services Bill improved, the Solicitors Regulation Authority (SRA – formerly the Law Society Regulation Board) strongly supports it. The legislation will create a far more transparent and accountable profession, with a regulatory structure that puts the public interest first.



Solicitors may ask why they should support legislation that clearly puts the interests of consumers first. The answer is simple: the profession can only benefit if consumers have greater confidence in it and if the government is assured that any problems are dealt with firmly and promptly without the need for it to intervene.



At the top of the structure would be an overarching legal services board (LSB), which would oversee the regulation of legal professionals by the frontline regulators. Consumers would benefit from this because the LSB would require the regulators to be independent, competent and able to operate to consistent standards.



The legal landscape and the way in which businesses work have changed beyond all recognition since the Solicitors Act was passed in 1974. The Bill provides a valuable opportunity to overhaul our powers. It will enable dozens of gaps and anomalies to be closed and removed, making it easier for us to safeguard the interests of clients and the wider public.



The biggest operational challenge presented to the SRA by the Bill will be the regulation of new types of organisation. These include legal firms with non-lawyers as owners and partners, and those where lawyers from different frontline bodies work together on an equal footing.



We will overcome these challenges, which are essentially of a technical nature. These new types of business structure could stimulate competition, which should benefit consumers. Our overriding priority will be to ensure there are adequate protections in place.



Within a few years, various non-legal businesses will probably be employing lawyers to provide advice on wills, house purchases and other transactions. Some companies are already offering limited legal services, outsourcing the work to firms of solicitors. Again, the government maintains that consumers will benefit from the increased competition.



The SRA is clear about its duties and priorities under the new regulatory regime. Our over-riding aim is ‘to set, promote and secure in the public interest, standards of behaviour and professional performance necessary to ensure that clients receive a good service and that the rule of law is upheld’.



Much of what we do benefits both consumers and solicitors. For instance, by making sure there are effective indemnity and compensation arrangements, we are bolstering consumers’ confidence in the profession as a whole. By dealing firmly with unacceptable performance and helping consumers to understand the standards they are entitled to expect, we are protecting the interests of those firms and solicitors who deliver a good service. By ensuring that those joining the profession are of the appropriate standard, we are being fair to those who have already qualified.



***



The SRA has reached agreement with the representation arm of the Law Society on how its budget will be set. There will be a transparent process, enabling the SRA to state what it thinks it needs, the Law Society to put forward its case, and ultimately, if there is a disagreement, it will allow the legal services board to make a decision.



Initially, the SRA would prepare a draft statement of its funding requirements and informally consult the Law Society. The SRA would be under no obligation to make any adjustments to its requirements. It would have the right at any time to finalise and make its submission.



The SRA would make a formal submission of its funding requirements to the Law Society Council. If the council took the view that it was unable to approve that requirement, it should formally ask the SRA to reconsider. The SRA would do this and resubmit its requirements, with any amendments.



The council would then make a submission to the LSB, which must include the SRA’s submission to the council. If the council’s submission to the LSB sought a different budget for regulation from that sought by the SRA, the council should explain to the board the reasons for disagreement.



The SRA’s submission, and the council’s reasons for disagreeing with the SRA’s requirement, if it did so, should be published at the time of submission to the LSB. The SRA would have the right to discuss these issues directly with the LSB – and there might be a three-way discussion between the Law Society, the LSB and the SRA.



Peter Williamson is chairman of the board of the Solicitors Regulation Authority