ABS countdown | 'What we need is a single legal regulator'

The chairman of the Legal Services Board, David Edmonds, recently told the Parliamentary Justice Committee "I don't see why in two to three years time it wouldn't be possible to create a regulator that applied itself across the whole landscape." Before all of you send your personal contributions to pay for the resulting SRA closing party, it might be worth a look at why he said it and whether or not it might actually happen.

In the early 2000's there was much talk in legal circles about the "regulatory maze" of different legal regulators with uneven functions and responsibilities. This was considered important by government and by Sir David Clementi, whose report resulted in the Legal Services Act. However, somewhere between the debate and the actual legislation the regulatory maze was forgotten and the new legal landscape bore an even more unfortunate resemblance to Hampton Court than the previous one.

The Legal Services Board was created to sit above the established regulators, all of whom were compelled to split themselves, in governance terms, into their representative and regulatory halves. The members of the Justice Committee picked up on this when questioning David Edmonds, Graham Stringer MP described the current situation as "red tape upon red tape".

Mr Edmonds chose to sympathise with this view and offered the opinion that the current legal regulators could be rolled up into one body. It could be argued that the reason he offered such a controversial view now is that he only has one year to go in his current role and felt that he had nothing to lose.

In 2004, when Clementi wrote his report, two main regulatory models were considered. The one which became fact left regulatory functions with the front-line regulators but created the Legal Services Board to provide consistent oversight in respect of all those bodies. The main alternative which was considered, but rejected, would have stripped out all regulatory functions from the front-line bodies.

These functions would have been vested in, and carried out by, a Legal Services Authority (LSA). This alternative was rejected for a host of reasons, not least that it would be very time-consuming to achieve and may have resulted in some political difficulty. Presumably what David Edmonds has in mind is some variant of the LSA.

The nearest UK equivalent to the LSA idea is probably the Financial Conduct Authority (formerly the Financial Services Authority). There are significant differences between the legal and financial sectors, most notably in the lack of history of any form of self-regulation and it might also be observed that the Financial Services Authority didn't exactly cover itself with glory in the final five years of its existence.

So, does a Legal Services Authority make any sense? From a consumer perspective it probably does. All elements of self-regulation would be removed and the system is simpler. A single regulator would lead to greater consistency in decision making and flexibility, without the constant arguments between the regulators. Regulation of ABSs would be much more straightforward. When viewed from the practitioner perspective things begin to look a little different.

Many solicitors view the SRA as, at best, unfriendly and unhelpful in its activities. It is highly unlikely that an LSA-type regulator would be more benevolent and consultative in its approach. In fact, it is highly likely that the LSA would be more remote and less concerned with taking unpopular measures.

Another issue may well be that of cost. The Legal Services Board has actually been very good in restraining its own growth and expense. It is still the small policy level body that was set out in its original terms. A Legal Services Authority would be very large and less likely to inhibit the tendency to enlarge itself common in many independent regulators.

Those of you who are worried that the LSA is almost upon us can probably rest easy, however. The existing legal regulators would not give up their powers without a fight. A single regulator would be perceived as the first stop en route to fusion of the professions. The Law Society, and particularly the Bar, still have a degree of clout when it comes to legislation and the changes contemplated would need a new Legal Services Act.

The current government is unlikely to use valuable parliamentary time in forcing through legislation which is not that important. Mr Edmonds' kite is likely to float away gently into the distance.