Legal Services Board pledges to work better with regulators
The Legal Services Board (LSB) has restated its intention to work better with industry regulators following a series of criticisms by bodies including the Solicitors Regulation Authority (SRA) and the Bar Standards Board (BSB). The LSB – the independent body responsible for overseeing the regulation of legal services in England and Wales – this month released its finalised business plan for 2013-14, with the plan "re-scoped significantly"following complaints of micro-management and unnecessary intervention.
April 11, 2013 at 07:03 PM
3 minute read
LSB responds to accusations from industry regulators of micro-management and overstepping its remit
The Legal Services Board (LSB) has restated its intention to work better with industry regulators following a series of criticisms by bodies including the Solicitors Regulation Authority (SRA) and the Bar Standards Board (BSB).
The LSB – the independent body responsible for overseeing the regulation of legal services in England and Wales – this month released its finalised business plan for 2013-14, with the plan "re-scoped significantly" following complaints of micro-management and unnecessary intervention.
The business plan details the LSB's goals to "work with regulators in a relationship of openness and trust"; avoid duplication of work undertaken by others; assure and improve the performance of approved regulators in areas including diversity; help consumers choose and use legal services; and address risks in the field of regulation. The body, which came into force in 2010 in the wake of the Legal Services Act (LSA), has the ability to strip underperforming professional bodies of their powers.
In a separate document, the LSB has also responded to criticism it received during a consultation on its business plan, which concluded in March. The consultation saw several respondents question the role of the LSB, expressing concern about the way the body interprets and exercises its statutory remit.
Earlier this year SRA chief executive Antony Townsend argued there was an "imbalance"in the LSB's approach to its regulatory objectives, "which tends to see the LSA in terms of narrow economic liberalisation, rather than the carefully balanced approach the Act was designed to achieve".
Townsend also accused the oversight regulator of over-stepping its remit, describing its past actions and future plans as having a tendency "to seek to intervene in the front-line regulators' exercise of their discretion, thus risking undermining the regulators' proper independence, skewing regulatory activity away from the highest risks, and leading to unhelpful and wasteful duplications of function".
The LSB has rejected the accusation of micro-management and duplication, countering that it does "not accept that oversight is a passive responsibility – although we continue to be clear that regulators have the primary responsibility for taking decisions".
It also "rejected utterly" a "totally un-evidenced assertion"by the SRA that the LSB is at risk of being too close to Government.
"There is no hotline from the LSB to the Ministry of Justice," said a spokesperson. "Obviously there are going to be tensions between the regulator and the regulated, but we have worked hard to ensure that these are addressed in an open and transparent manner."
Meanwhile, BSB director Vanessa Davies accused the LSB of conflating statutory and discretionary objectives and of giving them equal weight. The LSB responded to this charge by acknowledging it still has "work to do to convince stakeholders that that is not the case".
Other groups from the legal profession to respond to the consultation include the Bar Council, the Law Society and the Chartered Institute of Legal Executives.
The LSB's budget for 2013-14 stands at £4.45m, a £50,000 decrease on last year's running costs.
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 AllAshurst Beijing Chief Representative Leaves for New York Boutique Sterlington
Baker McKenzie, Norton Rose & Other Top Litigators Foresee Rise in AI, Data & ESG Disputes
Axiom-Ince: SFO Charges Five, Including Former Head, Following Investigation
3 minute readSDT Upholds SLAPP Claim Against Osborne Clarke Partner Advising Nadhim Zahawi
3 minute readTrending Stories
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