White Paper: proposals will constitute 'external interference', lawyers warn

City and legal aid lawyers came together this week to warn that plans for the future regulation of legal services do not provide the profession with sufficient independence from government.


Echoing concerns expressed last week by the Law Society, responses to the legal services White Paper from the City of London Law Society (CLLS) and Legal Aid Practitioners Group (LAPG) both criticised how the government proposed to set up the legal services board (LSB), which will oversee the profession.


The CLLS said: 'The proposals concerning the manner in which members of the LSB are appointed, its accountability, and the ways in which its scope and functions may be amended, do not allow for sufficient independence from government.'


The LAPG insisted that the LSB's powers - including the ability to de-authorise a front-line regulator such as the Law Society and carry out regulatory functions itself - would constitute 'external interference', prohibited by the United Nations' basic principles on the role of lawyers.


As proposed, the Secretary of State for Constitutional Affairs would be able to amend the LSB's objectives and powers, and be solely responsible for appointing its members. The LAPG argued: 'To test the real degree of independence a regulatory structure gives, look to where the ultimate power lies. Under this structure, it is concentrated in the hands of the secretary of state.'


The CLLS said that just the appearance of insufficient independence would damage the profession's international standing.


The Bar Council and the Institute of Legal Executives both focused on concerns that the LSB would not be the promised 'light touch' body that leaves the main work to the front-line regulators.


The Bar Council said: 'There is a real danger that this structure will be forgotten and that the LSB will become a costly body liable to delay rule changes and to burden the front-line regulators with unnecessary tasks and costs.'


All the bodies expressed concern that the profession will pick up the whole bill for the new regime.