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:

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:

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


Why Your Jurisdiction Should Consider Jumping on the Regulatory Objectives Bandwagon

It has become increasingly common to find jurisdictions adopting an explicit and succinct statement of the goals they are trying to achieve when they regulate lawyers. The first example was the 2007 UK Legal Services Act, which set forth the regulatory objectives that the Act — and its implementation — should achieve. The form that such adoption takes depends on the jurisdiction’s system of lawyer regulation. Thus, in the U.S., it likely would be a state’s high court and not the legislature or a law society that would adopt regulatory objectives,

This article explains why the author recommends that jurisdictions develop regulatory objectives. Explicitly articulating goals should lead to greater public understanding of our system of lawyer regulation, make it less likely that any particular regulation will be motivated by an improper purpose (such as lawyer self-interest), and make it easier for those who regulate lawyers to respond to claims that regulation of lawyers is motivated purely by lawyer self-interest.

This article argues for an adoption process that is transparent and that encourages meaningful input from a wide variety of stakeholders. It urges US states to jump on the regulatory objectives bandwagon and to begin the process of developing objectives suitable for their respective jurisdictions.

Terry, Laurel S., Why Your Jurisdiction Should Consider Jumping on the Regulatory Objectives Bandwagon (2013). 22(1) Prof. Lawyer 1 (2013). Read the article at SSRN: