LSB set to survive government review despite best efforts of frontline bodies


MoJ: too early to consider any radical changes

The Legal Services Board (LSB) is likely to survive the government’s triennial review of its functions largely unscathed, despite a series of attacks from those it oversees, it has emerged.

The Bar Standards Board and the Law Society were particularly critical of the LSB in their responses to the review, calling for it to be scaled back and even possibly abolished in a few years’ time.

However, recently released minutes of the LSB’s March board meeting – at which the review was discussed with senior Ministry of Justice (MoJ) official Abigail Plenty – reveal that MoJ was of “the initial view that it was too early to consider any radical changes”.

The conclusion was likely to be that the LSB should continue to exist in its current form but should be ready to move from ‘implementation stage’ to ‘steady state’, with an acknowledgement that the dynamic state of the market – including alternative business structures, the Jackson reforms and legal aid changes – was “likely to significantly impact the regulatory environment in the short to medium term”.

Questions had been raised in workshops about the current set-up, however, such as whether the boundaries of regulation were right; whether there were flaws in the founding legislative architecture; the potential for micro-management by the LSB; duplication of the roles of the LSB and the approved regulators; and the future landscape and what it would mean for the LSB.

There were similar questions in relation to the Office for Legal Complaints (OLC) – the formal name for the Legal Ombudsman – and also discussion over whether there remained a need for an OLC board as distinct from the LSB board. However, the minutes reported that on further probing, the criticism around resourcing two separate boards had “fallen away”.

The Legal Services Consumer Panel is also under the microscope, and the reaction to its role was said to be positive, although there were issues around the panel’s visibility and the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills’ plans to transfer most consumer advocacy functions to Citizen’s Advice.

 

Tags:




Leave a Comment

By clicking Submit you consent to Legal Futures storing your personal data and confirm you have read our Privacy Policy and section 5 of our Terms & Conditions which deals with user-generated content. All comments will be moderated before posting.

Required fields are marked *
Email address will not be published.

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

Blog


Five key issues to consider when adopting an AI-based legal tech

As generative AI starts to play a bigger role in our working lives, there are some key issues that your law firm needs to consider when adopting an AI-based legal tech.


Bulk litigation – not always working in consumers interests

For consumers to get the benefit, bulk litigation needs to be done well, and we are increasingly concerned that there are significant problems in some areas of this market.


ABSs, cost and audits – fixing regulation after Axiom Ince

A feature of law firm collapses and frauds has sometimes been the over-concentration of power in outdated and overburdened systems of control.


Loading animation