MoJ consultation prompts proposals for regulatory reform, including a single disciplinary system
The Ministry of Justice’s (MoJ) ongoing call for evidence regarding the performance of the Legal Services Board (LSB) has prompted detailed responses from key industry bodies, highlighting a shared view that the current regulatory framework requires review.
While the Legal Services Consumer Panel (LSCP) and the Law Society have approached the consultation from different perspectives, both suggest that structural and operational refinements are necessary to improve the system.
The LSCP expressed concern that the regulatory landscape established by the Legal Services Act 2007 makes it highly difficult for the LSB to fully realise its statutory objectives.
To address the complexities of the current system, the consumer panel has recommended the creation of a single disciplinary process for all legal professionals. At present, consumers must navigate different regulatory procedures depending on whether their representative is a solicitor, barrister, or legal executive.
The LSCP suggests that establishing a unified disciplinary body would simplify the complaints process, provide greater clarity for the public, and ensure consistency in regulatory outcomes across the entire legal sector.
Tom Hayhoe, Chair of Legal Services Consumer Panel said: ‘AI-enabled legal tools, digital platforms, and hybrid service models cannot be governed effectively through siloed initiatives. The LSB should lead a cross-sector strategy that ensures consistent standards and anticipatory regulation’
On the other hand, the Law Society’s response focuses primarily on the LSB’s operational scope. The professional body has advised that the oversight regulator should concentrate strictly on its core statutory role of monitoring frontline regulators, such as the Solicitors Regulation Authority (SRA), rather than initiating separate policy directives.
The Law Society cautioned against potential “mission creep,” noting that overlapping responsibilities between the LSB and frontline regulators can create unnecessary complexity. It emphasised that the LSB’s primary function should remain assessing whether those frontline bodies are performing effectively.
Additionally, the Law Society highlighted the importance of monitoring the LSB’s operational costs. It noted that the financial requirements placed on the profession by the oversight regulator could ultimately drive up the cost of legal services, which may inadvertently affect consumer access to justice.
Mark Evans, Law Society president, said: “The LSB’s ‘light touch’ assurance model adopted in 2022 is problematic as it relies on frontline regulators self-reporting the adequacy of their performance, with no absolute requirement for evidence.
While the LSCP’s focus remains on streamlining the consumer experience through structural reform, the Law Society’s priority is ensuring the LSB operates efficiently within its defined statutory boundaries. Both submissions will now be considered by the MoJ as it evaluates the future of legal services regulation.