*/
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.
Justice system requires urgent attention and next steps on the Harman Review
Q&A with Tim Lynch of Jordan Lynch Private Finance
By Marie Law, Director of Toxicology at AlphaBiolabs
By Louise Crush of Westgate Wealth Management
Why Virtual Assistants Can Meet the Legal Profession’s Exacting Standards
Despite increased awareness, why are AI hallucinations continuing to infiltrate court cases at an alarming rate? Matthew Lee investigates
Many disabled barristers face entrenched obstacles to KC appointment – both procedural and systemic, writes Diego F Soto-Miranda
The proscribing of Palestine Action under the Terrorism Act is an assault on the English language and on civil liberties, argues Paul Harris SC, founder of the Bar Human Rights Committee
For over three decades, the Bar Mock Trial Competition has boosted the skills, knowledge and confidence of tens of thousands of state school students – as sixth-form teacher Conor Duffy and Young Citizens’ Akasa Pradhan report
Suzie Miller’s latest play puts the legal system centre stage once more. Will it galvanise change? asks Rehna Azim
