The Legal Services Board, the oversight regulator which provided conspicuously little oversight of regulators’ mistakes of recent years, is a vocal advocate for transparency.
It has been a keen supporter of efforts to force firms to be more open about pricing and service quality and has been ‘disappointed with the lack of progress’ on transparency measures in the profession.
Its approach to transparency among regulators is no less stringent. In its performance assessment for the frontline regulators last March, the LSB lamented that some bodies were still falling short of expectations.
The overseer wrote: ‘We are concerned that some regulators (CLC, FO and ICAEW) still fail to consistently publish board papers and minutes, or provide stakeholders, including the profession and others, with information about their regulatory policy activities in a timely manner.’
And yet. Last month, chief executive Richard Orpin in his regular report revealed there had been an extraordinary board meeting held on 11 February to discuss issues around the collapse of PM Law. A further board meeting was scheduled for an unknown date this month. (Regular LSB meetings are, rather opaquely, always held behind closed doors.)
Despite numerous requests from the Gazette, the LSB has been unable to provide minutes or even an agenda for this crisis meeting, despite the obvious public interest. Other than Orpin’s passing reference, there is no mention of the extraordinary meetings anywhere on the LSB’s page, nor indeed any information about the LSB’s response on PM Law.
Obiter welcomes any attempt to wring a little transparency out of the regulatory bodies. But perhaps the LSB might want to get its own windows in order first.
1 Reader's comment