LSB opens review to see off potential for another Mazur

The oversight regulator will take another look at guidance provided on reserved legal activities to ensure there is no repeat of the Mazur nightmare. The Legal Services Board today announced a review of the frontline regulators’ guidance to ensure there are ‘no further inconsistencies’ along the lines which arose on the conduct of litigation.

The Mazur litigation brought to light different advice and guidance from regulators and representative bodies about who was authorised to carry out litigation. This culminated in the Chartered Institute for Legal Executives bringing a challenge in the Court of Appeal, where judges ruled it was lawful for unauthorised staff to conduct litigation under the supervision of an authorised solicitor.

The uncertainty had lasted for months and there were reports of firms letting go of legal executives under the assumption they were not authorised to conduct litigation. Frontline regulators and representative bodies were blamed in some quarters for giving conflicting or ambiguous guidance on what was permitted.

The LSB will now review on other reserved activities: the exercise of a right of audience, reserved instrument activities, probate activities, notarial activities and the administration of oaths.

The work will seek to identify any issues relating to the consistency, legal accuracy, clarity or adequacy of detail in guidance provided to the profession. The review will also consider whether guidance is consistent with the applicable legal and regulatory framework.

Richard Orpin, LSB chief executive, said: ‘Clear, accurate and consistent guidance helps legal services providers understand and comply with their regulatory obligations, in turn supporting public trust and consumer confidence in legal services.

‘As the oversight regulator, the LSB is uniquely placed to take a sector-wide view across the legal services regulatory landscape. That enables us to identify opportunities to improve clarity and consistency where appropriate.’

The review will not assess the merits of the underlying legislation or comment on whether changes to the legislation are required. Neither will it consider historical guidance that is no longer published or that has been replaced or withdrawn. A report is expected to be published in January.