*/
The Bar Standards Board (BSB) is working towards making decisions about barristers joining Legal Disciplinary Practices and Alternative Business Structures.
As explained in the BSB’s response to the Legal Services Board’s discussion paper ’Wider access, better value, strong protection’, the BSB is concerned that some evidence is obtained to ensure that the effect on consumers is better understood.
In its response to the LSB’s discussion paper, the BSB emphasised its commitment to maintaining the availability of a broad choice of expert advocates and specialist advisory services to the public. However, in considering the LSB proposals for a new regulatory regime, the BSB, in its response, set out a number of serious concerns.
The BSB recognises that the development of ABSs is a core objective of the Act, but regards a properly functioning regulatory regime as equally important. Many of the BSB’s concerns with the LSB proposals relate to a lack of quantified evidence to demonstrate that any changes in the business structures, through which barristers provide advocacy and advisory services, will not undermine regulatory objectives. For example, the BSB is not satisfied that there is sufficient evidence to demonstrate that all forms of ABSs are necessarily compatible with the regulatory objectives of the Act, or that they will necessarily bring benefits for consumers.
The BSB believes that any new regime for ABSs cannot be effective in its design until there is more evidence about what sort of market is likely to be created, and its impact on the consumers of legal services. Until such evidence exists, or at least until there is a reasonable assessment of the potential impact on the regulatory objectives of different scenarios for the provision of legal services through Legal Disciplinary Practices (LDPs) or ABSs, it would be wrong for the BSB to make a decision to permit barristers to join them.
To assist our decision making process in relation to new types of business structure, the BSB has commissioned preliminary research, to be carried out by Europe Economics, on LDPs and ABSs which will assess the possible effects on the market and consumers of potentially allowing barristers to practise as managers of LDPs and other new business vehicles.
Commenting, Ruth Deech, BSB Chair, said:
“The BSB is keen to embrace the new dimensions for the provision of legal services set out in the Legal Services Act, yet we also believe that this should be preceded by careful evidence based consideration of the issues.
This is particularly important in order to ensure that we meet the objectives of responsible regulation, the benefits of which include promoting access to justice, consumer choice, competition, and encouraging an independent, strong, diverse and effective legal profession. We must collect evidence, as we are now doing, because getting the regulation of legal services right is a once in a generation decision. The new research will contribute to the evidence needed to assist the BSB in reaching a properly balanced and considered decision and we expect to make this in November, depending on the evidence.”
In its response to the LSB’s discussion paper, the BSB emphasised its commitment to maintaining the availability of a broad choice of expert advocates and specialist advisory services to the public. However, in considering the LSB proposals for a new regulatory regime, the BSB, in its response, set out a number of serious concerns.
The BSB recognises that the development of ABSs is a core objective of the Act, but regards a properly functioning regulatory regime as equally important. Many of the BSB’s concerns with the LSB proposals relate to a lack of quantified evidence to demonstrate that any changes in the business structures, through which barristers provide advocacy and advisory services, will not undermine regulatory objectives. For example, the BSB is not satisfied that there is sufficient evidence to demonstrate that all forms of ABSs are necessarily compatible with the regulatory objectives of the Act, or that they will necessarily bring benefits for consumers.
The BSB believes that any new regime for ABSs cannot be effective in its design until there is more evidence about what sort of market is likely to be created, and its impact on the consumers of legal services. Until such evidence exists, or at least until there is a reasonable assessment of the potential impact on the regulatory objectives of different scenarios for the provision of legal services through Legal Disciplinary Practices (LDPs) or ABSs, it would be wrong for the BSB to make a decision to permit barristers to join them.
To assist our decision making process in relation to new types of business structure, the BSB has commissioned preliminary research, to be carried out by Europe Economics, on LDPs and ABSs which will assess the possible effects on the market and consumers of potentially allowing barristers to practise as managers of LDPs and other new business vehicles.
Commenting, Ruth Deech, BSB Chair, said:
“The BSB is keen to embrace the new dimensions for the provision of legal services set out in the Legal Services Act, yet we also believe that this should be preceded by careful evidence based consideration of the issues.
This is particularly important in order to ensure that we meet the objectives of responsible regulation, the benefits of which include promoting access to justice, consumer choice, competition, and encouraging an independent, strong, diverse and effective legal profession. We must collect evidence, as we are now doing, because getting the regulation of legal services right is a once in a generation decision. The new research will contribute to the evidence needed to assist the BSB in reaching a properly balanced and considered decision and we expect to make this in November, depending on the evidence.”
The Bar Standards Board (BSB) is working towards making decisions about barristers joining Legal Disciplinary Practices and Alternative Business Structures.
As explained in the BSB’s response to the Legal Services Board’s discussion paper ’Wider access, better value, strong protection’, the BSB is concerned that some evidence is obtained to ensure that the effect on consumers is better understood.
Now is the time to tackle inappropriate behaviour at the Bar as well as extend our reach and collaboration with organisations and individuals at home and abroad
A comparison – Dan Monaghan, Head of DWF Chambers, invites two viewpoints
And if not, why not? asks Louise Crush of Westgate Wealth Management
Marie Law, Head of Toxicology at AlphaBiolabs, discusses the many benefits of oral fluid drug testing for child welfare and protection matters
To mark International Women’s Day, Louise Crush of Westgate Wealth Management looks at how financial planning can help bridge the gap
Casey Randall of AlphaBiolabs answers some of the most common questions regarding relationship DNA testing for court
Maria Scotland and Niamh Wilkie report from the Bar Council’s 2024 visit to the United Arab Emirates exploring practice development opportunities for the England and Wales family Bar
Marking Neurodiversity Week 2025, an anonymous barrister shares the revelations and emotions from a mid-career diagnosis with a view to encouraging others to find out more
David Wurtzel analyses the outcome of the 2024 silk competition and how it compares with previous years, revealing some striking trends and home truths for the profession
Save for some high-flyers and those who can become commercial arbitrators, it is generally a question of all or nothing but that does not mean moving from hero to zero, says Andrew Hillier