Report comment

My point is, that in the grand scheme, MF pose little threat to the public safety, when looked at in the much wider context of the provision of legal services. I don’t think there is a creditable argument against that point. I have not read either articles that I referenced, that was not the point I was making, about those individual cases. The point is that even the regulated sector is failing and we see those reports almost every day. Do I think that the provision of legal services should be regulated? Yes, most definitely. Do I think that regulation will prevent dishonesty? Not necessarily, the evidence would suggest not. However, if all legal services were regulated, then when you remove someone from the role they cannot return the following day as a paid MF. Consider it this way, whether you drive a smart car, or an HGV, we have different categories on our drivers licence, yet we all have to follow the same regulations on the road. Whether a MF, Solicitor or Counsel, we should all follow broadly the same regulation, and then when someone is banned they stay banned. Other than using universal regulation to ensure dishonest practitioners stay barred from practice, I would be interested to hear exactly what other protection regulation actually provides. Don’t say insurance, because insurance is not regulation, and anyone can be found in contempt, so what exactly does regulation provide?