Watchdog surprises Bar with launch of root and branch rulebook review
The Bar Standards Board (BSB) has embarked on an ambitious three-year project to rewrite the Bar's rulebook. The project was kicked off this week with the publication of a consultation paper that calls for views on how the Bar's Code of Conduct should be updated in the light of the Legal Services Bill and claims by the Office of Fair Trading that parts of the code may be anti-competitive.
June 13, 2007 at 10:44 PM
3 minute read
The Bar Standards Board (BSB) has embarked on an ambitious three-year project to rewrite the Bar's rulebook.
The project was kicked off this week with the publication of a consultation paper that calls for views on how the Bar's Code of Conduct should be updated in the light of the Legal Services Bill and claims by the Office of Fair Trading that parts of the code may be anti-competitive.
Up for review will be a host of rules, including the 'cab rank' rule, which is designed to prevent barristers from turning down unpalatable cases, and the ban on barristers forming partnerships either with themselves or other professionals.
Also highlighted for scrutiny are barristers' duties to the court, the rules governing complaints and disciplinary actions and the heavy restrictions currently imposed on barristers wishing to comment publicly on cases.
The launch of the review comes a year after the BSB was established as part of the Bar Council's efforts to anticipate the Legal Services Bill, which contains provisions requiring the professional bodies to ring-fence their regulatory arms.
Commenting on the move, BSB director Mark Stobbs said: "We need to take a proper look at whether the code is fit for purpose and up to date. We want to check there is a good reason for each rule, to see whether each rule is proportionate and to see whether they are based on evidence."
He added: "There is a lot to look at in three years and we are going to have our work cut out. The code has not really been looked at in its entirety before, but the profession is evolving and some changes need to be addressed."
Once the responses to the general consultation have been received, the BSB will launch a series of investigations into different aspects of the rulebook, with the regulation of alternative business structures at the front of the queue.
The BSB envisages holding the first in-depth consultation on this area towards the end of the year, with any decisions on changes to be made in the second half of 2008. Changes to the code will be introduced in tranches.
However, some barristers criticised the move, saying the BSB is conducting too many reviews. One senior clerk at a leading chambers commented: "The profession at the moment feels there is too much change for change's sake. I do not see what is wrong with the code as it stands and even if there is something wrong with it, it will be years before it is changed."
He added: "The Bar is a cost effective, specialist and self-regulating body. If they keep over-regulating, they risk putting people out of business."
In a separate move, the BSB has published its annual report for 2006, covering the first year of its establishment. Since 2005, the total cost of regulation has risen from £3,051,243 to £3,480,690. The body attributes this for the most part to increased staff costs.
Talkback: Is the Bar facing review fatigue? Click here to have your say.
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
NOT FOR REPRINT
© 2024 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.
You Might Like
View AllApple Subsidiaries in Belgium and France Sued by DRC Over Conflict Minerals
2 minute readBaker McKenzie, Norton Rose & Other Top Litigators Foresee Rise in AI, Data & ESG Disputes
Freshfields Takes on Syria's Brutal Legacy, But Will Victims Ever See Compensation?
5 minute readECJ Ruling Upholds German Ban on Pure Private Equity Investment in Law Firms
4 minute readTrending Stories
- 1The Key Moves in the Reshuffling German Legal Market as 2025 Dawns
- 2Social Media Celebrities Clash in $100M Lawsuit
- 3Federal Judge Sets 2026 Admiralty Bench Trial in Baltimore Bridge Collapse Litigation
- 4Trump Media Accuses Purchaser Rep of Extortion, Harassment After Merger
- 5Judge Slashes $2M in Punitive Damages in Sober-Living Harassment Case
Who Got The Work
Michael G. Bongiorno, Andrew Scott Dulberg and Elizabeth E. Driscoll from Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr have stepped in to represent Symbotic Inc., an A.I.-enabled technology platform that focuses on increasing supply chain efficiency, and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The case, filed Oct. 2 in Massachusetts District Court by the Brown Law Firm on behalf of Stephen Austen, accuses certain officers and directors of misleading investors in regard to Symbotic's potential for margin growth by failing to disclose that the company was not equipped to timely deploy its systems or manage expenses through project delays. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Nathaniel M. Gorton, is 1:24-cv-12522, Austen v. Cohen et al.
Who Got The Work
Edmund Polubinski and Marie Killmond of Davis Polk & Wardwell have entered appearances for data platform software development company MongoDB and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The action, filed Oct. 7 in New York Southern District Court by the Brown Law Firm, accuses the company's directors and/or officers of falsely expressing confidence in the company’s restructuring of its sales incentive plan and downplaying the severity of decreases in its upfront commitments. The case is 1:24-cv-07594, Roy v. Ittycheria et al.
Who Got The Work
Amy O. Bruchs and Kurt F. Ellison of Michael Best & Friedrich have entered appearances for Epic Systems Corp. in a pending employment discrimination lawsuit. The suit was filed Sept. 7 in Wisconsin Western District Court by Levine Eisberner LLC and Siri & Glimstad on behalf of a project manager who claims that he was wrongfully terminated after applying for a religious exemption to the defendant's COVID-19 vaccine mandate. The case, assigned to U.S. Magistrate Judge Anita Marie Boor, is 3:24-cv-00630, Secker, Nathan v. Epic Systems Corporation.
Who Got The Work
David X. Sullivan, Thomas J. Finn and Gregory A. Hall from McCarter & English have entered appearances for Sunrun Installation Services in a pending civil rights lawsuit. The complaint was filed Sept. 4 in Connecticut District Court by attorney Robert M. Berke on behalf of former employee George Edward Steins, who was arrested and charged with employing an unregistered home improvement salesperson. The complaint alleges that had Sunrun informed the Connecticut Department of Consumer Protection that the plaintiff's employment had ended in 2017 and that he no longer held Sunrun's home improvement contractor license, he would not have been hit with charges, which were dismissed in May 2024. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Jeffrey A. Meyer, is 3:24-cv-01423, Steins v. Sunrun, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Greenberg Traurig shareholder Joshua L. Raskin has entered an appearance for boohoo.com UK Ltd. in a pending patent infringement lawsuit. The suit, filed Sept. 3 in Texas Eastern District Court by Rozier Hardt McDonough on behalf of Alto Dynamics, asserts five patents related to an online shopping platform. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Rodney Gilstrap, is 2:24-cv-00719, Alto Dynamics, LLC v. boohoo.com UK Limited.
Featured Firms
Law Offices of Gary Martin Hays & Associates, P.C.
(470) 294-1674
Law Offices of Mark E. Salomone
(857) 444-6468
Smith & Hassler
(713) 739-1250