The single regulator debate is not a vote winner

The response from the major players in legal regulation to the MoJ call for evidence on the current regulatory regime reminded me of a work initiative aimed at improving customer service in which I was involved. All staff were invited to suggest a way in which they could personally improve the service they offered to the public. But '¨more than 80 per cent of responses suggested ways in which other people could do better. Nearly all the legal regulators, with the possible exception of the LSB, appear to have had a similar reaction to the MoJ's request.

David Edmonds, the LSB chair, openly discussed his idea of a single legal regulator recently. The logical final outcome, if this proposal is pursued, would probably be one legal profession, with regulation implemented in an activity-based or modular way. Edmonds is well aware that this is a deeply contentious suggestion and that it would probably take many years to achieve.

However, he was at least prepared to contemplate dismantling the LSB itself to get there. The LSB sees itself as an oversight regulator with a duty to improve competition for consumers' benefit. A new legal services authority would be a vastly different, and much '¨larger, beast.

Altruistic approach

Existing frontline regulators have rejected an altruistic approach in favour of desperately trying to ensure their own survival. The SRA has taken the opportunity to attempt to break free from Law Society control and become truly independent. It is not a separate legal entity and it is the Law Society that is named as the "approved regulator" in the Legal Services Act.

The society chose to use the review as a chance to regain responsibility for training, authorisation to practise and standard-setting from the SRA, which it perceives as increasingly out of control. The stakes are high for the society. It would lose much of its influence in the greater legal world if it lost '¨all control over its regulatory arm. Edmonds has criticised '¨the "continuing spat" between the two bodies but it also '¨seems clear that he has '¨greater sympathy with '¨the SRA.

The relationship between the LSB and the Bar Standards Board (BSB) has been difficult from day one with the latter calling for the former to be abolished as long ago as April 2012. In its response to the review, the BSB again called for LSB to go and to be '¨replaced by a non-statutory council of regulators. It also wants independence from the Bar Council.

Otherwise the two bodies appear to have similar views. It is reasonable to say that the idea of a single legal regulator would find little support in the Inns of Court. And if the MoJ was minded to take up Edmonds' suggestion, some considerable political opposition could be deployed by the barristers.

Independent thought

So, is there any sign of an independent opinion among all these protagonists? The Legal Services Consumer Panel may be the only one, although the Bar Council and BSB have both advocated its abolition in their responses. The panel thinks that there should be a single legal regulator and a single code of conduct to achieve greater simplicity and confidence from a consumer perspective.

No one knows whether the MoJ is likely to take any action on the back of the consultation responses. It would need to be brave and have the wisdom of Solomon to find its way through the polarised views expressed by the main players. It is questionable whether the government, at this point, has the time or the inclination to engage in legal services reform, which is likely to be politically contentious in the legal world but of minimal vote-winning value at the next general election.

Perhaps the status quo has '¨a little life in it yet. SJ