SRA hanging in-house lawyers out to dry with unclear ABS rule, Law Society claims


Local authorities: SRA should provide more guidance to in-house lawyers on ABS requirement

Solicitors Regulation Authority (SRA) is acting unreasonably by leaving it to in-house lawyers to decide whether the law requires that their legal teams become alternative business structures (ABSs), the Law Society has claimed.

The SRA has proposed that organisations whose in-house solicitors provide reserved legal activities to people other than their employer – such as insurers, associations and local authorities – will need first to consider whether section 15(4) of the Legal Services Act 2007 requires them to become an ABS.

Section 15(4) says in-house lawyers offering reserved legal activities to “the public or a section of the public” must do so from an ABS. The SRA said difficulties with defining this meant it could not establish a clear line to delineate the circumstances when it applied.

However, in response to a short consultation on the issue, the society said this approach does not provide sufficient clarity, “with the result that in-house lawyers/organisations will still face uncertainty about whether or not they require authorisation by the SRA as an ABS”.

It continued: “We recognise that this is a difficult issue, but the SRA is effectively placing responsibility for interpretation of section 15 of the Act back on to the profession. This is unreasonable and we believe that the SRA should revisit this issue.”

The society said the SRA’s approach will “inevitably lead to different organisations coming to different conclusions about whether a particular approach is legitimate. As the aim of this consultation and the SRA’s proposed amendments is to provide clarity, the SRA should provide clearer guidance to firms”.

This was particularly important given that “the SRA would certainly have to take action in respect of any regulatory breaches which may be a consequence of breaking the law”.

The society pointed out that section 15(9) enables the Lord Chancellor to clear up much of the uncertainty by defining by order what does or does not constitute section of the public. Chancery Lane urged the SRA to press the Lord Chancellor to do so.

 

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