Top jurists call for regulatory change to increase access to justice

During the 9th June ABA discussion on regulatory change, Vice Chief Justice Ann A. Scott Timmer of the Arizona Supreme Court stated that despite decades of efforts to encourage practising lawyers to perform a minimum of 50 pro bono hours annually to increase access to justice, minimal results have been achieved.

Timmer is part of a growing list of top jurists calling for regulatory change to expand access to justice. Instead of relying on pro bono work to increase legal access, for instance, regulatory changes could lead to nonlawyers handling some routine legal matters. She and chief justices from Utah, Michigan and Texas discussed some of these changes in the inaugural Redesigning Legal Speaker Series, which is intended to provide a forum to explore the legal profession’s regulatory changes underway and the challenges they face. Three ABA entities — the Center for Innovation, the Center for Professional Responsibility and the Standing Committee on the Delivery of Legal Services — have teamed up with the Institute for the Advancement of the American Legal System at the University of Denver and Legal Hackers to organize what is planned as a quarterly series.

The debut program, Redesigning Legal: Leading from the Bench — Expanding Access through Regulatory Innovation, also featured Chief Justice Bridget McCormack of Michigan, Chief Justice Nathan Hecht of Texas and Chief Justice Matthew Durrant of Utah, and showcased how supreme courts in Utah and Arizona have ushered in regulatory change to expand access to justice.

In Arizona, legal paraprofessionals can now practice in four distinct areas. The state Supreme Court also eliminated model rules that prohibit the sharing of legal fees with nonlawyers.

In Utah, 23 pilot programs have been approved in the state’s seven-year “sandbox” approach, Durrant said. They range from a solo practitioner giving his sole paralegal 10% ownership in the firm to law students at Brigham Young University providing counsel to domestic violence victims.

Hecht, who is also chair of the Conference of Chief Justices, said courts are rethinking their roles because jurists realize pro bono efforts are not sufficient to provide access to the courts for many Americans. McCormack added, “We are going to forge forward in Michigan because this is now the time in the process to try. And the big winner could be the public.”

Read more here.

0

England and Wales regulators launch new customer review pilot

A joint pilot project has launched by the Solicitors Regulation Authority (SRA), the Council for Licensed Conveyancers (CLC), CILEx Regulation (CRL) and the Bar Standards Board (BSB), under which regulated law firms have been invited to help develop meaningful quality indicators,  which will aid potential clients when choosing their legal service provider.

The exercise has brought together website providers and firms, as well as encouraging existing clients to post reviews, in order to identify what indicators they use when purchasing and assessing legal services. Currently, over 70 firms have signed up to the pilot to look at how reviews could add value to other comparison data, such as price.

The group of regulators will be carrying out research to find the best way to raise awareness amongst consumers of the benefits of shopping around for legal services. Legal services tend to be one-off or infrequent purchases, so the ‘triggers’ used in sectors such as energy and insurance are not as evident. The research will therefore explore options relevant to the legal services market. As well as this the research is aiming to explore objective data which may help consumers compare quality and will be liaising with comparison website providers and firms involved in the pilot to collect this.

Tracy Vegro, SRA Executive Director, Strategy and Innovation, has said, “We were obviously confident of seeing the project produce meaningful results that would help develop meaningful quality indicators, but we did not expect to see such a strong level of engagement initially and to see other, far-reaching effects emerging too. We originally said the pilot would run for six months, but we want to expand it to make sure we capture all the great work that firms are doing. So there is still time for more firms to get involved and become part of the momentum the pilot is creating. Stimulating the market so it is motivated to act allows for greater innovation in the long run when compared to moving straight to increased regulation, and the sector is clearly reaping the benefits of this already. We would encourage any other firm to join the project.’

Read more about the pilot here. 

0

Protecting and Promoting Competition in Response to ‘Disruptive’ Innovations in Legal Services: OECD Background Paper

Abstract

Despite traditional resistance to change in legal professions, pro-competitive “disruptive” innovations are beginning to transform legal services and the manner in which they are delivered. Online service delivery is allowing both legal professionals and unlicensed providers to serve clients remotely while taking advantage of the scalability of digital platforms. In addition, ranking and review information regarding legal professionals is becoming increasingly accessible, and is allowing clients to assess the quality of professionals before retaining them – a previously difficult proposition. Further, the unbundling of services, partially driven by increasing client awareness and fee pressure, is transforming the distribution of tasks in legal services and ending traditional “black box” models of service delivery. As a result, standardized activities are being outsourced to low-cost providers (including unlicensed ones), and new billing models are being introduced. Finally, automation is changing the nature, and volume, of tasks that legal professionals perform. Although the extent to which the work of legal professions can be automated is subject to debate, automated systems have been introduced which offer new capabilities and, in at least some instances, improved performance relative to legal professionals.

As a result of these innovations and the new competition they bring, the regulatory framework in which legal professionals operate is under pressure. The exclusivity enjoyed by legal professionals, and the precise scope of activities to which it applies, is becoming unclear as unlicensed entrants offer a widening range of services. Restrictions on the quantity of professionals that can operate in specified regions are being questioned at a time where the services they provide could easily be made available online. Further, legal professional self-regulators may be unable, or ill-suited, to identify accommodations that permit innovative entrants to serve consumers.

Competition authorities, which may have limited experience in legal services markets given that enforcement issues have been rare, should be aware of the challenges described above. Authorities can play a role in advocating for regulatory systems that reflect current market realities and ensure market access for pro-competitive disruptive innovations. Such a role could include advising policymakers who may be seeking to balance the benefits of competition with other policy objectives such as consumer protection. This process will require consideration of the objectives of legal professional regulations, particularly those addressing market failure, as well as the current design of those regulations.

Mancini, James, Protecting and Promoting Competition in Response to ‘Disruptive’ Innovations in Legal Services: OECD Background Paper (March 9, 2016). Working Party No. 2 on Competition and Regulation,

Available at SSRN.

0

Nederlandse Orde van Advocaten unveils website to allow consumers to easily access disciplinary rulings

The Nederlandse Orde van Advocaten (NOvA)  has created a website designed to allow consumers to easily access disciplinary rulings. The new feature has been launched as part of the ‘Find a lawyer’ search engine, which allows a litigant to better identify legal counsel. The website had previously shown indicative information about lawyers possibly facing a disciplinary decision, however, the website now includes a feature that allows users to click directly from a lawyer’s profile to access the full ruling of the court and or disciplinary board in relation to a lawyer.

The  zoekeenadvocaat.nl (find a lawyer) which was launched in 2019, provides consumers with the basic information on all lawyers in the Netherlands including contact and address details in registered jurisdictions, membership of specialist associations and whether the lawyer hears cases on the basis of legal aid. If a lawyer is suspended at that time, this is also clearly indicated. Lawyers who have been disbarred are completely removed from the search results.

The results previously contained a short description of any disciplinary decisions where a suspension or cancellation measure has been pronounced. However, it is now also possible to click on the relevant disciplinary decision and read the full decision directly on tuchtrecht.overheid.nl . This provides the litigant with easier access to disciplinary information, giving consumers better access to information when making a decision.

View the find a lawyer search engine here, or read more about the changes here. (Both resources in Dutch, but available via Google Translate)

0

Legal Services Board of England and Wales releases ten year report

A new report by the Legal Services Board (LSB) was published on the 25th November, the report is designed to give a review of the legal services sector, ten years since the initiation of independent regulation. The report is entitled “The State of Legal Services 2020” and is made up of a narrative section and an evidence compendium, and is informed by data, evidence and conversations with a wide range of individuals and organisations over the last six months and research by the LSB and others.

The LSB was established in 2009 to oversee the regulation of legal services in England and Wales. The report concludes that despite a number of achievements over the last decade, the basic legal needs of many citizens are not being met. Citizens today do have more choice when it comes to finding legal advice, and satisfaction with services has increased. However, 3.6 million adults in England and Wales have an unmet legal need involving a dispute every year. More than 1 in 3 adults (36%) have low confidence that they could achieve a fair and positive outcome when faced with a legal problem. Nearly nine in ten people say that “law is a game in which the skilful and resourceful are more likely to get what they want”.

While many are concerned about reductions in the scale and scope of legal aid and increased pressure on third sector advice agencies, other factors also contribute. Many people and businesses lack the capability and confidence to recognise legal problems and get help.  Comparison websites and customer review sites are not well established. Only 30% of consumers shop around, and only 2% use a comparison service before choosing a law firm. The market needs to put consumers first.

Exploring ways to address these challenges, the LSB says that it will be important to ensure that regulatory bodies put the interests of the public and consumers at the heart of everything they do. It has identified three areas of opportunity for all those involved in the sector to come together to drive improvement:

  • Fairer outcomes – widening public access to advice and support and ensuring that no one has a worse outcome or quality of service due to their background or life circumstances. The sector must also build a more inclusive culture which enables anyone to enter the law and achieve their full career potential.
  • Stronger confidence – resolving long-standing questions around the scope of regulation and broadening access to redress. It also requires regulators to put the right mechanisms in place so that legal professionals deliver consistently competent and ethical legal services.
  • Better services – giving consumers the information and tools they need to drive stronger competition, creating the right conditions for providers – including those yet to enter the market – to redesign legal services that respond to their needs. It also entails regulators fostering responsible innovation that commands the trust of both the public and legal professionals.

Dr Helen Phillips, Chair of the Legal Services Board, said: “Despite the real successes of the last decade, many of the critical challenges facing the legal sector today existed when the Legal Services Act came into force. This partly reflects that it continues to be difficult for people to know when they have a legal problem and to engage with the legal services market and shop around. It also reflects policy decisions taken over a long period relating to the publicly-funded legal sector. However, as our report lays out, there is an opportunity for the sector to reinvent itself and embrace a culture that puts the needs of consumers at its heart.  If we are successful, we will reduce unmet need and provide a much more equal experience for consumers.  Shopping around will be the norm, and people will find it easier to find and compare providers and reward firms offering high quality and affordable services. Consumers will consistently trust the advice they get, knowing an independent and effective regulatory system is providing the essential protection they need. That system will be equipped to respond to the changing market, provide better value for money and support innovation.  If consumers receive poor service, whatever type of provider they use, they will be able to complain to an independent body and obtain quick and fair redress.”

Also see:

0

The Anatomy of Consumer Legal Funding

Abstract

Litigant Third-Party Funding (LTPF), where financial companies advance money on a non-recourse basis to individual plaintiffs, is a growing and increasingly controversial industry in the U.S. This funding made headlines during the NFL concussion litigation with more than 1,000 players reported to have received such advances and with class counsel raising concerns of “predatory lending” with the Court. Policymakers and scholars echo these concerns as they call for regulation of the industry to protect vulnerable consumers. Any regulations, however, should be based on systematic data rather than good intentions or isolated anecdotes. But to date there has been almost no empirical research on the actual practices of the industry. This Article begins to fill that void.

Using a unique data set from one of the largest consumer litigation financing firms in the U.S. (“Funder”), we are the first to explore the anatomy of pre-settlement litigant finance in mass tort cases, such as the NFL class action. We are also the first to examine general post-settlement litigant finance in the U.S., which is the type of funding many NFL players were reported to have obtained. Our comprehensive data set includes approximately 225,593 requests for funding from 2001 throughout 2016.

With respect to pre-settlement funding, we find that the Funder makes an annual median gross profit of 55% from Mass Tort claims (compared with 60% from Motor Vehicle claims, our control group). We also find that the Funder includes complicated terms in their contracts that make it extremely difficult for clients to understand the actual interest rate they will be eventually be charged. We believe lawmakers should regulate these contracts, banning any unnecessarily complicated provisions and requiring that the effective annual interest rate and total amount due be straightforwardly disclosed.

With respect to post-settlement funding, we find that the effective annual interest rate charged and the profit to the Funder are even greater than for post-settlement fundings – 68% compared to 60% for Motor Vehicle claims. This is striking given that post-settlement fundings present virtually no risk to the Funder. Indeed we find that the rate of default in post-settlement cases is close to zero, which means that this category of advance is “non-recourse” on paper but not on the ground. We therefore recommend that funding in post-settlement cases should be subject to consumer protections similar to those usury laws provide for ordinary loans.

Avraham, Ronen and Baker, Lynn A. and Sebok, Anthony J., The Anatomy of Consumer Legal Funding (August 10, 2020). Cardozo Legal Studies Research Paper No. 618, U of Texas Law, Public Law Research Paper Forthcoming, U of Texas Law, Law and Econ Research Paper Forthcoming, Available at SSRN: https://ssrn.com/abstract=3670825 or http://dx.doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.3670825

0

Legal Services Consumer Panel shows that consumers are shopping blind

The Legal Services Consumer Panel has published a report on consumer decision making. The research shows that consumers indicators such as length of practice and website design when making their decisions.

The Panel has called for independent information to be provided to consumers, with information including transparent costs and previous client reviews and testimonials.

Sarah Chambers, Chair of the Legal Services Consumer Panel, said:

“There has been a patent lack of strategic direction and a sluggish pace in addressing consumers’ need for reliable, comparable quality indicators, almost four years after the Competition and Markets Authority’s findings that lack of information on price and quality hampered competition.

Legal service regulators must now respond by doing two things. Firstly, they must work towards a clear strategic goal of establishing a sector-wide framework for quality indicators. This framework should be rooted in an articulation of what good looks like for consumers. Secondly, regulators must accelerate their pace in this area. The CMA is scheduled to reassess the sector at the end of the year. If they find that little to no progress has been made on this issue, this could create a reputational risk for regulators as it might suggest that consumers are not at the heart of regulation. And of course, consumers will continue to be left without the basic information they need to choose a lawyer.”

Read the full LSCP report

Recently the LSCP has also joined calls for ongoing competence assessments of legal professionals, writing to the LSB to advocate for the move.

Read the LSCP’s letter. 

0

Washington State Bar Association to appeal ending of LLLTs

The Washington State Bar Association is set to seek review of the state Supreme Court’s decision to end the limited licence legal technician (LLLT) program in the state. At the LLLT board meeting on June the 8th the board decided to request the Supreme court review the decision or at least provide longer for those currently training to complete their licensing requirements.

The review comes in the wake of the June 5th decision by the Supreme Court to “sunset” the LLLT program. The court felt that the costs were too high for the limited participation in the program, and ruled that all those aiming to become licensed must do so by 31st July 2021.

The LLLT program is the first of its kind in the USA and is aimed to help provide affordable legal services to the broader population in the state. LLLTs are licensed by the Washington Supreme Court to advise and assist people going through a divorce, child custody, and other family law matters, the aim had been to expand these practice areas. LLLTs consult with and advise clients, complete and file necessary court documents, assist pro se clients at certain types of hearings, and advise and participate in mediation, arbitration, and settlement conferences.

The Bar Association has requested that anyone who wishes to contact the Supreme Court about the decision should email  supreme@courts.wa.gov.

See the Bar Association’s comments.

See the Supreme Court’s letter announcing the decision (PDF).

See Justice Madsen’s dissenting opinion on the decision (PDF).

 

 

0

Legal Services Consumer Panel concerned about information quality

A consumer impact report launched by the Legal Services Consumer Panel in March of this year has highlighted ongoing concerns about indicators of service quality provided by lawyers. The report highlights that 4 years after the publication of a CMA report that examined the difficulty for consumers in gauging the quality of legal services before purchasing, issues still remain.

The report highlights that the scarcity of quality indicators that lawyers and firms are required to publish negates much of the progress that has been made on price transparency. The report calls on regulators to act to build a common framework of quality indicators in order to improve consumer awareness.

Sarah Chambers, the chair of the panel said: “The sector must continue to focus on transparency as a regulatory tool that has the power to empower consumers and enhance effective choice and competition. I am still concerned that very little progress has been made towards establishing quality indicators, considering that we are now in the fourth year since the CMA identified a need.”

Download the full Legal Services Consumer Panel Consumer Impact Report in PDF.

0

Notes on the Westminster Legal Policy Forum keynote seminar – 25th February 2020

This ICLR special report has been compiled to give members a flavour of what was discussed during the annual Westminster Legal Policy Forum, held on the 25th February 2020. The theme of the day was ‘regulation, consumer protection and responding to innovation’, with speakers drawn from across regulators, representative bodies, academia and the legal services sector from across England and Wales. Further information about upcoming Westminster Legal Policy forum events, as well as publications from the forum, are available here.

The Independent Review of Legal Services Regulation – key issues to be addressed

Professor Stephen Mayson, Centre for Ethics and Law, University College London and Lead, Independent Review of Legal Services Regulation

The day began with a keynote speech by Professor Stephen Mayson outlining the progress of his hotly anticipated recommendations on legal services regulation. Professor Mayson took the opportunity to address some of the key issues that had arisen during the course of his research. Professor Mayson stressed that his report was written with the consumer as the primary concern, saying that given the scale of unmet legal need across England and Wales, it had become increasingly clear, both that the changes he will propose will be too radical to be achieved within the Legal Services Act 2007 (LSA) and that he increasingly views reform as something that will need to take place sooner rather than later.

Professor Mayson raised four key issues that he has identified under the current regime:

  1.  The vulnerable – Professor Mayson highlighted the vast level of unmet legal need in the country, saying that the law is too complex and too important for the level of access available. Professor Mayson also criticised the “unprincipled” nature dichotomy of high barriers to entry to deliver reserved legal activities, which are treated as essential until a consumer can no longer afford them, at which point the consumer becomes able to self represent.
  2. The dabblers – Professor Mayson also criticised the narrow entry gate to the profession, which allows a wide range of practice. He highlighted the fact that the simultaneous licensing of title and activity allows legal practitioners to hold themselves out as capable of delivering in areas in which they have limited or no competence and experience, leading to a lack of credibility.
  3. Buridan’s ass – Professor Mayson discussed the philosophical concept of Buridan’s ass, in which a donkey placed equidistantly between two piles of food is unable to make a decision as to which one to move towards and starves. He compared this to regulatory reform, suggesting that unless a decision was made on either moving towards risk-based regulation, or some kind of reworking of the existing system then reform would become paralysed by a lack of choice.
  4. The Gordian Knot – Professor Mayson highlighted that his report will raise many questions as to what an independent regulatory system should look like, however, he highlighted that the current system creates the artifice of the approved regulator, which holds an unclear position between being a profession focused representative body and publicly focused regulator. Professor Mayson suggested that the time has come to sever the Gordian knot between the regulatory body and approved regulator.

The full text of Professor Mayson’s speech is available here, with further information about the independent review of legal services available here.

The future of legal services – technology adoption, the changing shape of professional services firms and regulatory development

A lively panel discussion followed the keynotes speech, with panellists providing analysis on what they saw as key issues in the regulation of legal services

Neil Rose, Founder and Editor, Legal Futures – Mr Rose discussed some of the need for reform, pointing out that whilst the current system works well for some, there remain an awful lot of people for whom it doesn’t. Neil pointed out that the attitude in the sector still gravitates towards “we do things this way because this is how it’s always been done”. He raised the idea that the LSA has acted as a catalyst in allowing new businesses to come in and disrupt the sector, pointing out that concerns over compromised standards have not been fulfilled. Neil also pointed towards the new Solicitors qualifying exam suggesting that it could lead to seismic changes in the profession. He also pointed towards further reforms as creating the opportunity for the sector to further grow and develop.

John Gould, Senior Partner, Russell-Cooke; Author, The Law of Legal Services and Member, Advisory Panel, Independent Review of Legal Services – Mr Gould began by asking if there is really a need and an appetite for change. He then went on to describe how the current system has become something of a “lottery winners bungalow”, with many developments and aspirational additions tacked on, with no coherent whole. Mr Gould suggested that this has created a system where compliance officers have become a necessity as a go-between between lawyers and regulators, with the public completely excluded, with no clarity as to how the system works. He suggested that a clearer and more understandable system must be developed with the relationship between activity and title being clearly defined, to create a system that can function for the public, practitioners and regulators.

Duncan Wiggetts, Executive Director, Professional Standards, ICAEW – Mr Wiggets discussed how the distinction between lawyers and non-lawyers has become increasingly blurred. He suggested that for consumers of legal services costs had become a key factor in how purchasing decisions are made, leading to a convergence between accountants, lawyers and other business advisors. Mr Wiggets pointed towards the Brydon and Kingman reviews into audit and financial reporting, suggesting that these could inform the ongoing work of the Mayson review. He suggested that both these reports pointed towards the primacy of public interest and the need for risk-based regulation.

Kirsteen Forisky, Head of Innovations, LEAP Legal Software – Ms Forisky pointed out that changes in the legal environment have fundamentally altered legal service delivery. She pointed out that to remain competitive firms must begin to use technology, particularly cloud-based software, in order to improve their efficiency and information-sharing capabilities. She pointed out that this will enable firms to work in an agile way, meeting client demands in today’s business environment, allowing them to offer an enhanced client experience, without creating added pressures and costs on employees.

Derek Sweeting QC, Vice-Chair, Bar Council – Mr Sweeting discussed the risks present in opening up the profession. He cited current concerns over unregulated legal providers, raising the example of Paul Wright v Troy Lucas & George Rusz, citing the danger of unregulated provision. Mr Sweeting suggested that consumers prefer to rely on named professionals, who they can trust and rely on to provide quality services. Mr Sweeting suggested that the growing number of solicitors entering into the profession combined with increased public legal knowledge would meet the unmet legal need gap in a way that allowed people to place trust in the legal sector.

Chair’s closing remarks

Lord Gold

Based on the discussion throughout the morning Lord Gold took the opportunity to urge the Ministry of Justice to take action on simplifying the regulatory regime, highlighting the fact that unless there is political action, the profession will continue to debate and delay ad infinitum. The Conservative peer raised concerns over regulators ability to respond to technology and other challenges and said: “If you leave it to the brilliant lawyers we have in this country, they will obfuscate and delay and it will never happen … Now is the time for the MoJ to rip this up and decide what exact regulatory regime we need for the future.”

The state of the market – transparency, consumer engagement and reflections on the 2016 Market Study

Chris Jenkins, Economics Director, Competition and Markets Authority – Mr Jenkins gave his thoughts on the progress that had been made since the release of the CMA’s hugely influential 2016 study on the legal services market. He pointed out that in the initial study there had been a pledge to review the progress approximately every three years, and told the event that a review was planned for the second half of 2020. Taking a broad view Mr Jenkins suggested that tackling the issue of public ability to asses price and quality had not been fully addressed and that more work was needed on the issue to improve consumer ability to make purchasing decisions. He called for regulators to push forward on improving standards of transparency, making it easier to compare services and providers. He did point out however that there had been greater progress in implementing changes improving independence and regulatory transparency which had been a positive move, although he suggested that there was still more work needed in improving consumer redress.

The focus on consumers – public confidence, competition and managing ‘unmet legal need’

Simon Davis, President, The Law Society – Mr Davis discussed the findings of the recently published legal needs survey, which was produced by the law society in partnership with the LSB and YouGov. Mr Davis pointed out that the results of the survey suggested that when people did purchase legal services from a solicitor the vast majority were satisfied with the service and outcome. He pointed out that many consumers were unsure if their problem constituted a legal problem and therefore failed to seek advice. He suggested, therefore, that the solution in tackling unmet legal need was improving legal aid provision and increasing public legal education, to help consumers identify when they had a legal issue.

Dr Ashwini Natraj, Senior Economic Consultant, Consumer and Behavioural Economics Team, London Economics – Dr Nataraj outlined the work that London Economics has been doing on the relationship between behavioural economics and public engagement with the legal sector. She discussed some of the ongoing issues that exist in public decision making around legal services, highlighting problems such as the complexity of the market, stress purchasing, information asymmetry, and the infrequency of purchasing. She pointed out that this has led to low awareness of consumer protections, low confidence in the sector, particularly amongst vulnerable groups and difficulty balancing price and quality. She suggested that behavioural economics approaches could be used to improve engagement and understanding of legal regulation, particularly as there was a difficult balance between providing enough information to give consumers clarity, which has to be balanced against overwhelming consumers with a vast weight of information.

Mariette Hughes, Head Ombudsman, Legal Ombudsman – Ms Hughes discussed the role of the Legal Ombudsman in improving public confidence in legal services. She pointed out that as the last resort and last port of call the ombudsman is often the key touchpoint in maintaining public confidence amongst the most vulnerable and most challenging cases. However, she pointed out that there was still a presumption that the ombudsman would be able to provide consistent supply and quality, raising questions over the resources available to the ombudsman. She also pointed out whilst having a single ombudsman for the whole sector helps to improve confidence, there is also the risk that a single ombudsman can not leave some gaps, which must be met by specialised regulators to avoid damaging public confidence.

Rob Houghton, Founder and Chief Executive Officer, really moving and The Law Superstore – Mr Houghton discussed the role of price and quality comparison sites in providing consumers with resources to better understand the legal market. He pointed out that having resources to compare prices allows for greater influence of natural market forces over an opaque marketplace. He suggested that having greater price and quality competition could only stand to benefit consumers, as it would increase the information available whilst also pushing providers to improve the value proposition of their services, effectively creating a new way to sell their services on value and quality, allowing them to compete with larger organisations.

Julia Salasky, Founder and Chief Executive Officer, Legl – Ms Salasky discussed the role that technology can play in addressing consumer side challenges. She suggested that as expectations of a certain level of consumer experience increase, failing to meet this expectation reflects increasingly negatively on the profession.  She suggested that technology could provide an incredible opportunity for the industry to improve communication around value and transparency of products, which could go on to inherently improve public confidence in their legal purchases, and therefore public confidence in the law as a whole.

Regulation in the legal services market – structures, roles and independence

Matthew Hill, Chief Executive, Legal Services Board (LSB) – Mr Hill raised concerns over the fact that unmet legal need was still a major problem and that the legal market was not working for a significant proportion of the population and economy. He compared the current regulatory system to a chair with two legs, saying “You can sit on it perfectly comfortably provided a lot of people spend a lot of time holding it steady for you. We do spend a lot of time making independence work by investing time and effort in it.” Suggesting that the current system can be made to work and that further change can be wrung out of it, however, to truly create an impact there must be a wholesale change in legal regulation. He said “The existing system is undoubtedly complex. It’s built around professions and not consumers. For example, reserved legal activities and title-focused regulators make sense to regulators and sectors, but not necessarily to the public.” He suggested that whilst public legal education played a valuable role, it clearly had not significantly shifted public views on the sector and was sometimes used as a way of blaming the public rather than taking responsibility for change. He ultimately suggested that reform would have to come about at some point and should be built around meeting consumer needs first. Mr Hill also questioned whether, given the scale of some regulatory bodies, they were all fully able to deliver public outcomes.

Ewen Macleod, Director of Strategy and Policy, Bar Standards Board  (BSB) –  Mr Macleod agreed that change was needed to improve public confidence. He suggested that the greatest risk to consumers came about during the initial advice to consumers. He, therefore, suggested that the answer did not lie in creating further barriers, and instead lay in working to improve reputational issues. He said that through broadening the scope of after the event regulation, increasing access to the Legal Ombudsman and improving public information over how to access legal services, public confidence could be improved. He suggested that the board supported a greater focus on risk-based approaches, but that a title was necessary to provide clarity during purchase, suggesting that there is an issue over how risk-based approaches can map onto the public consciousness of existing titles and recognition. Mr Macleod also suggested that the BSB needs to be ready to respond to new developments in legal technology, in order to meet public expectation on the issue.

Chris Handford, Director of Regulatory Policy, Solicitors Regulation Authority (SRA) Mr Handford explained that given the fact that as of yet there have not been changes announced in the regulatory regime, therefore the SRA would continue to reform within the boundaries of the existing framework, stressing that the SRA was limited by decisions made at a government level and within the LSB, and within the confines of the LSA. He put forward several reforms that had been put implemented by the SRA, including rewriting solicitors standards to become more principles focused; work to increase trust and consistency, including exploring better quality indicators and ongoing competence; he talked about legal technology suggesting that there is significant potential in the area to improve access to justice, however, also flagging that the SRA must be alive to the potential risks technology could create. Mr Handford suggested that the direction of travel in the profession was towards increasingly blurred boundaries, with a lot of change coming, pointing out that regulators must be ready to embrace and act on this change in order to manage it and effectively fulfil their function.

Stuart Dalton, Director of Policy and Enforcement, CILEx Regulation (CRL) – Mr Dalton began by advocating strongly for the reforms being suggested by Stephen Mayson, suggesting that CRL could be ready to address much of the regulatory void that the report had identified, particularly around tech, helping to address much of the identified need, suggesting that under its current position CRL is already well equipped to deliver regulation around specific activities, given its current structure in regulation across the legal sector. Mr Dalton also took the opportunity to highlight CRL and CILEx’s strong commitment to regulatory independence. Emphasising that CRL has committed to achieving the highest possible degree of independence from CILEx as is possible under current statutory limits. He suggested that in the future regulatory independence, with a public focus would become the norm in legal regulation and that CRL would be leading the way towards this change.

Chair’s closing remarks

Rt Hon the Lord Falconer of Thoroton – Lord Falconer, the architect of the LSA gave his thoughts on the proceedings saying it was “apparent that the legal services market is not servicing the whole market properly and that market forces will not solve that problem”. He said that clearly the solutions had to come from a combination of regulators and public funding, pointing out that government buy-in is necessary to implement and initiate genuine change. The peer gave a nod to discussions about the complexity of the regime, as well as the growing role of technology, saying: “I am sure that there are things that could be done to improve the structure, but I believe that the structure is sufficiently flexible for the regulatory issues to be met. I am not that persuaded that a fundamental shift in the legislative structure is a good idea… but I do think one of the big problems is the failure of the state to provide sufficient legal aid and other forms of funding for advice that the market would not otherwise provide.”

0