To paraphrase the lightbulb joke, how many directors does it take to improve the performance of a legal services regulator? The Legal Services Board, an oversight watchdog which has overseen a catalogue of frontline failures in recent years, clearly believes the problem has been a dearth of cooks stirring the broth.

This week it announced a recruitment drive to fill three roles: director of regulatory oversight, head of performance and oversight, and head of policy for development and delivery.

To Obiter’s untrained ear, the posts sound pretty similar, but regulatory experts may appreciate the fine distinctions better.

The director of regulatory oversight will, according to the job description, ‘help build and sustain a high-performing team with deep insight into the activity of the regulators we oversee, to help support proportionate and effective oversight’.

The head of performance and oversight, on the other hand, will report to the DRO and ‘lead the delivery of high-quality, risk-based and evidence-led oversight of frontline regulators, ensuring that regulatory performance is effectively monitored and that timely and proportionate interventions are made’.

Which is, obviously, completely different.

Obiter welcomes efforts to upgrade an organisation which, according to its latest assessment report, has ‘lost its way’. But it is a little odd that the solution to such problems always appears to be padding out the panjandrum quotient.

Topics