CLC raises concerns over LSB plans, citing costs, overreach, and sector impact
The Council for Licensed Conveyancers (CLC) has raised concerns over the Legal Services Board’s (LSB) draft business plan for 2026/27, warning that aspects of the proposals could increase regulatory burdens and fail to address key risks facing the legal sector.
In its formal response to the consultation, the CLC acknowledged the opportunity to contribute but set out a series of criticisms regarding the LSB’s approach to oversight, policy development, and resourcing.
The regulator argued that the LSB should adopt a more targeted and evidence-based approach to oversight, focusing on areas of highest risk rather than applying broad, sector-wide measures. It stated that the legal services market is not uniform and that different regulators and practice areas face distinct challenges requiring tailored responses.
A central concern highlighted in the response is what the CLC describes as an increasingly “directive and prescriptive” approach by the LSB. It warned that such an approach risks undermining the independence of frontline regulators, who are better placed to assess risks within their own sectors and implement proportionate regulatory measures.
The CLC also questioned the LSB’s handling of rule-change applications, stating that the process has become overly detailed and burdensome. It suggested that scrutiny has shifted towards regulatory inputs rather than outcomes for consumers and the public interest, which it considers inconsistent with effective oversight.
Concerns were also raised about the LSB’s policy priorities, which the CLC described as ambitious and resource-intensive. The response called for smaller, more targeted projects that could deliver measurable outcomes more efficiently, rather than broad initiatives that may be difficult to implement effectively.
In addition, the CLC pointed to wider systemic challenges affecting the sector, including proposed changes to anti-money laundering supervision and requirements for conveyancers to register as tax advisers with HMRC. It argued that the LSB should take a more active role in engaging with government to address such cross-cutting issues.
The response also highlighted concerns about the cost of regulation. While noting a proposed marginal reduction in the LSB’s budget for 2026/27, the CLC observed that the Board’s budget had increased significantly in recent years, placing additional financial pressure on regulated professionals and, ultimately, consumers.
The CLC further emphasised the need for improved data and reporting from the Legal Ombudsman, describing ongoing difficulties in obtaining timely and usable information to support regulatory decision-making.
Overall, the CLC called for the LSB to refocus its efforts on proportionality, efficiency, and risk-based oversight, while maintaining the independence of frontline regulators and addressing broader challenges impacting the legal services sector.