*/
The Bar’s regulatory body has said it would be “wrong” for it to permit barristers to enter into Alternative Business Structures (“ABS”) without further research.
Responding to the Legal Services Board’s (“LSB”) discussion paper on developing a regulatory regime for ABS, Wider access, better value, strong protection, the Bar Standards Board (“BSB”) called for more evidence about what sort of market is likely to be created, and its impact on the consumers of legal services.
The BSB is concerned that changes to the business structures through which barristers provide services could undermine regulatory objectives. It has commissioned independent research into the eff ects of allowing barristers to practise as ABS managers, and will make its decision on regulation in November.
In a sharp retort, however, a LSB spokesperson said: “It’s no longer the time to continue having sterile debates about ‘if ’. “Debate around the need to remove the anti-competitive elements of the Bar’s regulatory regime has been ongoing for at least a decade. We will continue to work directly with approved regulators, with the numerous lawyers who speak to us directly, and with consumers, on the questions surrounding regulatory reform, including the removal of unnecessary restrictions on the provision of legal services.”
The BSB is concerned that changes to the business structures through which barristers provide services could undermine regulatory objectives. It has commissioned independent research into the eff ects of allowing barristers to practise as ABS managers, and will make its decision on regulation in November.
In a sharp retort, however, a LSB spokesperson said: “It’s no longer the time to continue having sterile debates about ‘if ’. “Debate around the need to remove the anti-competitive elements of the Bar’s regulatory regime has been ongoing for at least a decade. We will continue to work directly with approved regulators, with the numerous lawyers who speak to us directly, and with consumers, on the questions surrounding regulatory reform, including the removal of unnecessary restrictions on the provision of legal services.”
The Bar’s regulatory body has said it would be “wrong” for it to permit barristers to enter into Alternative Business Structures (“ABS”) without further research.
Responding to the Legal Services Board’s (“LSB”) discussion paper on developing a regulatory regime for ABS, Wider access, better value, strong protection, the Bar Standards Board (“BSB”) called for more evidence about what sort of market is likely to be created, and its impact on the consumers of legal services.
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
