post

Solicitors Regulation Authority publishes Residential Conveyancing thematic review

A review about the service provided by solicitors to the public

Executive summary

Buying and selling a property is often the most expensive and important financial commitment a person makes in their life. Having access to reliable and good quality legal support really matters. It not only reduces stress and uncertainty, but potentially directly impacts on whether a purchase is completed, and what the long-term financial implications may be for all involved.

While most property transactions are completed relatively seamlessly, figures from the Legal Ombudsman (LeO) show that residential conveyancing accounted for nearly a quarter of all complaints it handled over the past three years.

Our own research of consumers, conducted in 2018, also identified that up to a quarter of recent home buyers were dissatisfied with some element of the service they received from their solicitor. One common area of concern was an apparent failure to fully explain the detail and implications of contractual commitments.

What we did

We carried out this thematic review to better understand how firms are delivering residential conveyancing services, and whether they are fulfilling their obligations to their clients.

We visited a sample of 40 law firms offering residential conveyancing services and conducted a detailed review of 80 case files.

What we found

We found that most firms were fulfilling their obligations. In particular, we found that:

  • all firms proactively communicated with clients at all key stages of a purchase, with the majority meeting them face-to-face at least once
  • all firms provided clients with clear information on their complaints procedures
  • firms are increasingly embracing technology, especially regarding how they communicate with clients.

However, we did identify areas for improvement. The two most significant and widespread were:

  • inaccurate initial cost estimates – 34% of firms failed to include all the services/fees a matter could reasonably expect to attract in their initial quotes
  • not being open about the real cost of third-party disbursement and their firm’s mark-up on these – specifically telegraphic transfers. In 37% of cases firms failed to do this, with some charging up to 10 times the actual bank charge for processing the transfer.

Other areas where we identified potential concerns included:

  • not processing paperwork efficiently – especially in relation to requisitions raised by HM Land Registry
  • not explaining the difference between freehold and leasehold ownership
  • failing to double-check that a client understands the long-term implications of contractual obligations and fees.

Conclusions

This review clearly found that in the majority of cases, conveyancing firms actively engage with their clients and fulfil their obligations to them. Property deals progress in a timely and efficient manner and clients feel informed and supported throughout.

But sadly, this is not always the case.

Whether its providing unrealistic or incomplete quotes, or failing to make sure contractual information has been fully understood, solicitors are potentially leaving their clients exposed to significant risk or potential financial hardship.

Next steps

This thematic review took place during 2018. In December the same year, we introduced new transparency rules which require firms offering conveyancing services to publish detailed price and services information, and their complaints procedures online.

The requirement to provide clear pricing information was not new. However, these rules, and associated guidance, now provide the profession with absolute clarity on our expectations for how they should be publishing price information.

These requirements include:

  • outlining all known and potential costs a transaction may attract from the outset
  • specifying all charges being added to the actual cost of any third-party disbursements.

As part of our ongoing work, we will continue to review compliance with these rules and will consider further action where necessary to make sure they are being followed.

On the specific subject of making sure solicitors explain contractual details to clients, especially in relation to leaseholds, we urge all firms to make sure that their clients understand their obligations. If we find evidence that people were not made aware of onerous clauses in their leasehold contracts, such as the regular doubling of ground rents, we will take robust action.

Following this review, we referred six firms onto our internal disciplinary processes. Five of these referrals included concerns about failing to declare that the stated telegraphic transfers fees included an additional charge/mark-up.

Read the full report here

post

Independent Review of UK Legal Services Regulation Launched

The Centre for Ethics and Law in the UCL Faculty of Laws is undertaking a fundamental review of the current regulatory framework for legal services, led by Honorary Professor Stephen Mayson.

The independent review is intended to explore the longer-term and related issues raised by the 2016 Competition and Markets Authority (CMA) market study, which concluded that the legal services sector is not working well for individual consumers and small businesses, and that the current regulatory framework is unsustainable in the long run.  It called for a review of that framework to make it more flexible as well as targeted at areas of highest risk where regulation is most needed.

The review’s objectives will be to consider how the regulatory framework can best:

  • promote and preserve the public interest in the rule of law and the administration of justice;
  • maintain the attractiveness of the law of England & Wales for the governance of relationships and transactions and of our courts in the resolution of disputes;
  • enhance the global competitiveness of our lawyers and other providers of legal services;
  • reflect and respond flexibly to fast-changing market conditions being driven by innovation and advances in technology;
  • protect and promote consumers’ interests, particularly in access to effective, ethical, innovative and affordable legal services and to justice; and
  • lead the world in proportionate, risk-based and cost-effective regulation of legal services, consistent with the better regulation principles.

The review will reflect these objectives and consider how we can best ensure that our legal services remain of high quality and are effective, and that their regulation is proportionate and fit for purpose.  It will also need to re-examine how to give the public much-needed transparency about the legal providers they use and the services they pay for, and ensure that they understand their options and the consequences of their choices.

The first two working papers are already published.  Each of the working papers will address the issues and challenges raised by the four fundamental questions of the review:

  • Why should we regulate legal services? (Rationale)
  • What are the legal services that should be regulated? (Scope)
  • Who should be regulated for the provision of legal services? (Focus)
  • How should we regulate legal services? (Structure)

In pursuing its work, the review will seek to engage with a wide range of stakeholders and interested parties, including the CMA, the Legal Services Board, approved regulators, front-line regulators, representative bodies, consumers, the judiciary, practitioners, and providers of legal education and training.

It is now open for submissions in response to the working papers, and for meetings and discussions to explore the issues: to follow up, contact Professor Stephen Mayson.

Read more at the University College London Independent Review of Legal Services Regulation page.

post

How can Blockchain and other Consensus Driven Cryptographic Technology be Regulated?

Some participants in the crypto/blockchain/DLT industry actively invite regulatory oversight but policy considerations and the usual patterns of legal and regulatory development can mean that wanting to be regulated is not always the same as being able to be regulated.

In the Hong Kong Lawyer, Syren Johnstone examines aspects of the technology that make it difficult to regulate the primary and secondary market, while at the same time allowing industry development without it being affected by fraud and abuse, or being used to service money laundering and other criminal purposes. It concludes by suggesting the policy approach that regulators should take to this new technology.

*This article first appeared in the Hong Kong Lawyer


The technology is the starting point

In 1988 Tim May famously stated “Computer technology is on the verge of providing the ability for individuals and groups to communicate and interact with each other in a totally anonymous manner. Two persons may exchange messages, conduct business, and negotiate electronic contracts without ever knowing the True Name, or legal identity, of the other.” Today, that has become a reality in a developing digital ecosystem that is being built on cryptographically secure consensus technology (“CCTech”) that forms the basis of blockchain and distributed ledger technology applications.

CCTech enables qualitatively different boundaries of commercial activity than was previously possible. It holds the promise of enabling new ways of undertaking existing commerce that provide efficiency gains, as well as generating new types of commercial activity. The first peer-to-peer version of electronic cash created on 3 January 2009 (Bitcoin), has been followed by other cryptocurrencies, digital tokens that provide access to some service or utility or operate as a security (see Hong Kong Lawyer, March 2018 “ICO Utility Tokens and the Relevance of Securities Law”), and smart contracts (collectively, ”cryptos”).

Industry growth has involved developers tapping into the highly regulated public capital market in ever-larger offerings. A secondary market facilitated by crypto exchanges has emerged. This is creating significant challenges to regulatory agencies to define how existing laws and regulations might apply.

Establishing a sustainable regulatory approach is complicated by features of CCTech still undergoing transformational evolution that pose novel challenges to regulatory policy making and raise fundamental questions about what regulatory oversight might look like, and to what it should attach.

The prospect of regulation

On the prospect of oversight by regulatory agencies, the crypto-industry continues to express its voice in a partisanly manner. There are those who see independence from oversight as a necessary expression of political freedom, or advocate that the industry should not be subjected to any oversight other than by the community participating in cryptos. Other participants in the industry wish to take advantage of the current situation by moving to the lowest commercially viable legal standard or jurisdiction.

There are also those who actively seek to be regulated as a means of being accepted into mainstream commercial activities and validated as a legitimate activity, and to foster the industry by directing it to applications benefitting society. Some see regulation as a competitive advantage over others who are ill-equipped, or inadequately funded, to cope with the anticipated burden of regulatory oversight. However, policy considerations and the usual patterns of legal and regulatory development can mean that wanting to be regulated is not always the same as being able to be regulated.

Regulatory agencies have to date primarily applied existing regulatory standards to the industry where they can. There is a general sense that this will not be enough to facilitate industry development while also dealing with the risk of fraud and consumer abuse. There are also real concerns that the anonymity provided by CCTech could be used by bad actors to further criminal purposes.

The primary hurdle for regulatory clarity is sometimes said to be the legacy system of laws, regulations and financial and commercial practices that have been established in a pre-CCTech era. Industry requests for regulators to specify the features that would determine which regulatory silo a crypto belongs to (money, security, futures contract, commodity, or other) oversimplifies the new context presented by CCTech and underestimate the related policy considerations.

Primary market activity thus remains governed by a singular question: is the crypto a security? This leaves CCTech developers cum promoters to resolve questions that lawyers and regulatory agencies cannot currently clearly define other than by reference to broad functional concepts, or narrow established categories, raising the danger of ex post regulation.

The development of taxonomies that seek to map cryptos onto existing securities laws as a means of assisting regulatory clarity has become a mini-industry. However, these often “solve” the problem without changing the underlying assumptions about how existing laws securities laws apply. As such they are essentially recursive and achieve very little. It is of course somewhat paradoxical to address something new by treating it as though it were something old.

In contrast to the situation in the primary market for securities, regulators in the UK and the U.S. have permitted a futures market to evolve around cryptocurrencies (Bitcoin, and recently Ether). The court in CFTC v. McDonnell, et al. (18-CV-361, 2018) has confirmed the oversight powers of the U.S. Commodity Futures Trading Commission (“CFTC”) in this regard. Although many in the industry perceive regulatory oversight as abhorrent to the essence of CCTech, regulatory oversight of the futures market has enabled the development of financial products within an established regulated infrastructure that has facilitated the perception of cryptocurrencies as a valid asset class to gain exposure to. Importantly, it means that investors are brought within a context subject to safeguards imposed on regulated intermediaries.

Building blocks

Regulation of the financial services industry in the modern era is based around three primary choke points concerning products, venues and acts. These assume some form of intermediation via markets, brokers and advisers. Regulation has already had to adapt in response to technology that displaces human involvement, such as algorithmic trading and robo-advising, where sentience ceases to form part of the regulated act but rather is embedded in the coding that enables the act to be undertaken.

CCTech presents additional difficulties. There is a venue, but it may be only exist in a code supported on a network of participants. There is an act, but that may take place without intermediation other than the non-sentient operation of a code operated over a network in which the creator no longer has a role. There is a product, but there is a recognised lack of clarity as to how to characterise a crypto for the purposes of regulatory silos. CCTech enables venue, act and product to be collapsed into the operation of code via distributed networks, decentralised and dis-intermediated arrangements, and smart contracts.

The possibility of undertaking commercial activity on a decentralised, peer-to-peer basis represents a qualitatively different kind of issue for regulatory agencies. At some point, adaptability may be challenged to the extent that existing regulatory tools which have developed around centralised, intermediary-based systems may to some extent be rendered obsolete, raising questions as to the continued viability of existing legal silos and traditional choke points, and giving rise to policy concerns.

Even if basic problems were solved about which or whether a law applies to a crypto, or at what choke point to apply it, there remain problematic areas. Regulation proceeds on the basis that regulation is possible but CCTech does not, at the present point in time, provide some of the usual building blocks that enable the meaningful implementation of regulatory objectives.

This includes an assortment of investor protection and market integrity considerations, such as: integrity of ownership and integrity of transactions, issues related to account management including proof of ownership to public audit standards, custody and segregation, how record keeping is to be undertaken, how exchange regulation might work, the ability to assert market transparency and market abuse protections, how money laundering risks are to be addressed.

To this can be added technical issues that the industry is actively trying to solve, many of which potentially give rise to legal issues and have implications for investor protection and market integrity. These often require an appreciation of how the science and technology operate and their weak points such as how they might be gamed by bad actors. They include: the management of keys and wallets, the risk of consensus hijack, denial of service attacks, double spending, scalability, code governance controls and cyber security challenges.

Disclosure is another building block. Key disclosures might address: does the underlying code do what it is expected or promised to do, is the governance of the code appropriate (such as agreeing on roll-backs), has it been properly written so that it is free of bugs that might facilitate hacks or other problems, has the security protocols been properly implemented, is the crypto scalable to benefit from network effects. Not all codes are the same in this regard and coding errors have caused significant problems in the past, yet there are no established standards for audits of code writing.

Not all problems are adequately managed by merely releasing information. Positive action is sometimes required. This can take the form of an industry regulating itself via standards and best practices, but the industry is in its nascent stages in this regard. An area of development to watch is the standards being developed by the International Organisation for Standardisation in their ISO/TC 307 programme. Nine new projects concerned with blockchain and DLT are currently in their proposal or preparatory stages.

Resolving some of the above building blocks is therefore a precursor for effective, granular regulation to develop. Solutions are likely to come from the technology itself as it develops in response to regulatory expectations. This may serve to facilitate the development of regulatory technology, which presents opportunities for creating avenues within the underlying CCTech code for interactions between the actors involved in any crypto generation or exchange, any buyer of a crypto, and regulatory agencies.

One of the inherent difficulties of addressing the regulation question is the reality that the industry is in its early stages of maturation. Core concepts are still subject to significant debate, the potential technological implementations of the science remains in a discovery and development phase, and the prospects for commercial use cases of CCTech is still evolving. This makes the policy formation that leads to regulatory implementation difficult as these conditions increase the risk that regulations are made only to see the industry change under it, or regulations are made that capture the wrong family of acts – in either case the policy objectives are missed.

The dynamics that animate regulatory change are subject to two related overarching considerations: to what extent is meaningful regulation possible and, if it is, how and when should regulatory oversight be imposed? Regulatory intervention that is too early, too heavy, or misses the target runs the risk of slowing the growth of the industry and damaging the beneficial prospects it offers to commercial activity and society more generally.

The technology is also the end point

The present state of regulatory uncertainty creates risks to the industry itself. It increases the cost of industry development because raising capital in an uncertain legal environment gives rise to increased liability risk. To this can be added the risks (including attendant industry costs) already observed in traditional capital markets (primary and secondary) that include fraud, money laundering, theft, mis-disclosure, manipulative practices, internal control failures, misfeasance, and adequate custody and handling of money, or securities or other assets belonging to another.

Whatever regulatory controls might be put in place, the reality is that the nature of CCTech presents a fundamental obstacle to oversight control because of the possibility – and consequences – of an alternative means of undertaking commerce on Internet-based networks that does not require the involvement of a regulated financial institution that intermediates transactions.

The intractable problem created by CCTech is how to bring cryptos within an appropriate oversight mechanism given its particular technological capability to subvert – unmeasured oversight control runs the risk of achieving the opposite effect of driving activity further out of sight. The proposal by the United States Treasury’s Office of Foreign Assets Control (“OFAC”) that it may add digital wallet addresses to its SDN List was criticised for just that. This reflects the anarchic potential of CCTech that is crucial for regulators to fully grasp if regulation is to be successfully developed. Regulatory agencies may need to look for ways of bringing oversight to the industry by using strategies different to those previously employed.

Actors in the industry seeking to be regulated are doing so for a number of commercial reasons including validation and legitimacy, the usual assurances provided to the market by regulatory oversight, industry risk reduction, and access to a larger pool of capital. It is proposed that these reasons can be engaged to make regulation a desirable option.

In short, the best way to establish regulation may be to make it attractive. That may not be a regulatory end-point but a point from which regulators can begin to better work with the industry. For that dynamic to work, it is essential that oversight controls do not undermine the opportunities that cryptos offer to new ways of engaging in commercial activity. Regulations must be based on outcomes that are independent of specific technologies and activities, such as fair disclosure, industry standards, and accountability for wrongdoing. Care must be taken that oversight controls do not to operate as anti-competitive tools.

The range of relations that CCTech can possibly create, and the behaviours in the market once they are created, are at once simulacra of human commerce and a potential further development of it. It remains to be seen whether the current trajectory of regulatory thought and action is working toward supporting the efficient allocation of risk and industry development, wherein capital finds projects that offer, and have a reasonable prospect of delivering, economic and social improvement.


Interested in the impact of new technologies on regulation? Get involved at this year’s annual conference. Contact Jim McKay (jamesmckay@lawscot.org.uk) to become involved as a speaker or session moderator. 

Colorado Lawyer Self-Assessment Program yields analytical insights

Colorado Supreme Court Office of Attorney Regulation Counsel started developing its lawyer self-assessment program more than two years ago, immediately after a seminal workshop on proactive, risk-based regulation at the 41st ABA National Conference of Professional Responsibility in May 2015. The new resource is a leading facet of a larger shift toward proactive management-based regulation, which aims to help lawyers practice ethically and soundly in the first place, rather than just reactively imposing discipline after lawyers make mistakes.

The new system provides the regulatory team with real time stats on lawyer engagement and self-assessed professional performance. It highlights the professional objectives scoring the highest and lowest across all respondents, providing the team with evidence to support further educational program development. The platform also has the ability to create customized lists of continuing legal education (CLE) resources based on each respondent’s own personal benchmarks and areas of need. These lists make yearly CLE planning fast and easy for lawyers, and keeps them focused on the most effective resources for their needs.

Jon White, staff attorney at the regulator, writes “The practice of law will always be challenging. The “ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure” approach of the proactive practice program seeks to reduce some of that stress. The self-assessments give lawyers the blueprint to build an ethical infrastructure. Lawyers, in turn, benefit from enhanced peace of mind. Clients benefit from exceptional service. It is a win-win for all.” The insights generated by the program’s data is informing the regulator where practitioners need more assistance, and where there may be weaker points in the sector as a whole. Staying ahead of this issues protects the public and strengthens the jurisdiction as a whole.

Read more about Colorado’s Lawyer Self-Assessment Program Here

 

post

Transparency lies at the heart of Consumer Satisfaction

In January, the Legal Services Board (LSB) of England & Wales released its “Regulatory Performance: Transitional Assessment Review” looking at the transitional assessment of each legal services regulatory body against the LSB’s regulatory performance standards. The report found that it had “sufficient assurance that the regulatory bodies have met the minimum required level of performance against the majority of expected outcomes”.

Transparency across the legal services market lies at the heart of consumer satisfaction. Recent Competition and Market Authority statistics found that before choosing their legal service provider 85% of consumers want better access to information, 53% want information about price, and 37% of consumers what to know about the quality of the service they would receive. In response, the Solicitors Regulation Authority released new price transparency rules, which requires regulated firms to publish price and service information on their websites.

Since 6 December 2018, all solicitors firms had to publish cost information in relation to conveyancing, probate, debt, employment and immigration. The new rules dictate that firms must provide a total cost or an average or range of costs, as well as explain the basis of these charges, including any hourly rate or fixed fees. Firms also must be clear on whether VAT is included, while also highlighting likely disbursements, and their costs. Any conditional or damages-based fees must be fully explained to clients who may have to make payments.

In addition to price transparency, firms are also required to ensure consumers under stand the services they require and are receiving. The rules demand firms

  • Explain what services are included for the quoted price
  • Highlight any services not included within the price, which a client may reasonably expect to be
  • Include information on key stages and typical timescales of these, and
  • Publish the qualifications and experience of anyone carrying out the work and of their supervisors.

SRA’s ‘Looking to the Future’ programme is based on a sound argument that law firms must become more transparent if they are to survive. Paul Philip, SRA Chief Executive, said: “Publishing information on price, services and protections will not only benefit the public, but will also help law firms win new business. Research shows that people struggle to find clear information about the services firms offer and think using a solicitor is more expensive than it actually is. We are providing guidance and support for firms to help them meet the new requirements and make the most of the opportunities they bring.”

The SRA has taken consumer protection and transparency a step further, introducing a new Digital Badge. Provided via software which will make sure only regulated firms can display it, the badge will show online visitors which firms are regulated and provide them with a link to information on the protections this provides. Displaying the badge will help firms differentiate themselves from unregulated providers. Use of the badge is initially voluntary but will become a mandatory requirement during 2019.

Challenges of Transparency

Due to the business structures of many law firms, publishing fees is no straightforward matter, leading to some to use a confusing blend of charts, costs schedules, calculators and costs estimates. It is the unknown factors of pursuing legal cases which can alter costs. Russell Conway, senior partner at Oliver Fisher, notes, “It’s the wiggle room issue which is going to be the bellwether as to how successful this project is”.

Price transparency undoubtedly remains vital to consumer protection and satisfaction. However, there are concerns that some consumers may be heavily influenced by price, rather than by skill and expertise. David Kirwan questions if, in a new transparent pricing environment, consumers will truly stop and weigh skills and expertise, rather than revert to low costs. These concerns are not isolated to the UK market, as globally practitioners have expressed concerns about an eventual ‘race to the bottom’. Kirwan notes that “How we as an industry respond, and the way in which we convince consumers that it’s worth potentially paying more to receive a high-quality service, will be crucial if we are to retain the high standards for which this country’s legal sector has become known”.

Complaints Transparency

In considering the question of quality of legal services, greater transparency and public access to disciplinary records is also needed. One of the key findings of the LSB report highlighted that regulators must continue to maintain records of disciplinary sanctions in their official registers. The SRA has issued guidance to help firms clearly understand their obligations under Rule 2.1 of the SRA Transparency Rules to publish complaints. This guidance includes information on complaints handling procedure details, how and when a complaint can be made to the Legal Ombudsman, and details about how and when a complaint can be made to the SRA. Sarah Chambers, chair of the Legal Services Consumer Panel (LSCP) stated that “Making enforcement data available to consumers is an area that will particularly benefit from consistency in approach”.

Ultimately, providing the public with as much clarity and information as possible when it comes to the legal services they require can benefit not only the consumer, but promote and ensure quality and competence of the industry as a whole. The new transparency rules promulgated by the SRA in December 2018 will improve public access to legal services, ensuring such information on legal service providers is readily available to consumers.


Interested in transparency and enforcement? Contact us and share what is happening in your jurisdiction. There are also opportunities to get involved with the topic at the annual conference. Contact Jim McKay (jamesmckay@lawscot.org.uk) to become involved as a speaker or session moderator.

Call for Publications: Journal for the Professional Lawyer

The American Bar Association Center for Professional Responsibility Publications Board is seeking submissions for publication in Journal of the Professional Lawyer, a peer-reviewed annual publication which typically features longer articles than the Center’s magazine, covering topics in greater depth, in law review format.

The deadline for articles for the 2018 edition of Journal of the Professional Lawyer is November 14, 2018.

Please submit articles to Mary McDermott, Senior Counsel, and staff to the Center Publications Board at:

Mary.mcdermott@americanbar.org

State Bar of California publishes 2017 Annual Discipline Report

In 2017 the State Bar and its prosecutorial arm, the Office of Chief Trial Counsel, implemented a number of comprehensive structural and process re-engineering reforms designed to improve public protection for all California residents. Given the ambitious nature of these reforms, key measures from the report indicate a decline in short-term performance as compared to the previous year.

Key 2017 workload measures include:

  • Received 15,175 new complaints of attorney misconduct; of these 524 were immigration related;
  • Received 668 unauthorized practice of law complaints, 158 of which were immigration related;
  • Referred 315 unauthorized practice of law matters to law enforcement for potential prosecution;
  • Closed 14,063 cases and filed formal charges in 483;
  • Recommended disbarment or suspension to the Supreme Court in 592 cases;
  • Disbarred 129 attorneys; suspended 134 attorneys; and reprimanded 52 attorneys.

An additional performance measure included in the Annual Discipline Report is case backlog, which grew in 2017. The report notes that while the current backlog is up, the Office of Chief Trial Counsel has been developing a new system of case prioritisation to provide more protection to vulnerable victims of attorney misconduct, which will ultimately ensure that the cases that cause the most harm to the public never end up in backlog status.

“Californians deserve to be protected by a strong attorney discipline system. Our internal reforms and improvements will help the State Bar better achieve our mission of protecting the public from attorney misconduct,” said Leah Wilson, Executive Director of the State Bar of California.

Major initiatives of the State Bar Office of Chief Trial Counsel in 2017 include:

  • Development of an improved case prioritisation system to devote more resources to the cases which pose the greatest threat to the public;
  • Implementation of a new Case Management System to increase transparency, effectiveness, and efficiency;
  • Assessment of workload to allocate heavy caseloads among staff fairly and efficiently.

The State Bar’s ongoing reform efforts included additional measures  taken in 2017 to support the attorney discipline system and public protection:

Read the full 2017 Annual Discipline Report.

 

LSB open consultation: share your views

The Legal Services Board (England and Wales) has launched a consultation paper seeking input and comment on their proposed three-year strategy (2018 – 2021) and business plan for 2018/19.  Some of the key themes and questions they address include: the impact of technology; consumer engagement with and experience of legal services; the impact of changing population demographics (growing and ageing population); how to remedy the lack of competition in the legal services market and the increasing and changing demands on regulators and the profession.

In the attached consultation the LSB outlines their priorities and plans and asks other legal regulators and representative bodies to:

  • Highlight any additional significant market trends or drivers for change that the LSB should also take into account
  • Comment on the LSB’s strategic objectives
  • Comment on their equality objectives
  • Comment on their proposed approach to market intelligence within the strategy
  • Identify any elements of the strategy or business plan that present an opportunity for more detailed dialogue and/or joint working between your organisation and the LSB.

The consultation is open until 19 February 2018.

What We Know and Need to Know About Global Lawyer Regulation

This article is one of a series addressing the American Bar Association’s Commission on the Future of Legal Services, and is intended to provide a foundation for policymakers interested in global lawyer regulation. Rather than suggest the best approach to regulating global lawyering and lawyers, however, the article instead takes aim at developing a wish-list of information for use by any U.S.-based policymaker interested in thinking through why a particular regulatory strategy is most likely to satisfy their objectives. The article addresses three questions. First, what does “global lawyer regulation” mean? Second, what should policymakers know before imposing or changing regulation? And third, which aspects of this need-to-know category already are known or would be knowable with modest additional effort? This foundation is intended to help policymakers consider next steps in supporting their role as regulatory advisors or direct regulators in a global context.

Link to the full article

Citation: Silver, Carole, What We Know and Need to Know About Global Lawyer Regulation (May 19, 2016). 67 South Carolina Law Review 461 (2016); Northwestern Public Law Research Paper No. 16-11; HLS Center on the Legal Profession Research Paper No. 2016-2. Available at SSRN: https://ssrn.com/abstract=2782029

Trends in global and Canadian lawyer regulation

This article examines Canadian lawyer regulation in light of the global trends challenging regulators worldwide. It explains why it is important for Canadian lawyers, regulators, clients, and other stakeholders to be aware of these global trends. The article also addresses the issue of whether these trends matter in a jurisdiction such as Saskatchewan that is not a global financial center on the order of New York, London or Toronto. The answer the article provides is “yes” – these trends are relevant to Saskatchewan and to jurisdictions throughout the world that care about lawyer regulation.

Terry, Laurel S., Trends in Global and Canadian Lawyer Regulation (2013). 76 Saskatchewan L. Rev. 145 (2013); Penn State Law Research Paper No. 24-2013. Available at SSRN: http://ssrn.com/abstract=2260560

This article was also presented at the 2016 International Conference of Legal Regulators.

Session title: Rethinking the application of technology to regulatory work

Trends in Global and Canadian Lawyer Regulation