The Law Society vehemently opposes recent SRA reform proposals

The Law Society vehemently opposes recent SRA reform proposals

A press release by The Law Society earlier today has firmly rejected the proposals made by the SRA into transparency reform because they would severely reduce consumer protections, rather than create transparency and increased choice.

Christina Blacklaws, Law Society president said: “The Solicitors Regulation Authority (SRA) appears to be pursuing a deregulatory agenda based on flawed premises and at the expense of consumers.

“The misguided proposals now being considered by the oversight regulator fail the litmus tests for regulation: they jeopardise the public interest and risk weakening the rule of law.

“The proposals are not supported by robust impact assessments or cost-benefit analysis appropriate for rule changes that will fundamentally change the legal services landscape.

“The rule change application to the LSB is misleading. It overstates support and understates opposition, disregarding consumer groups, legal experts and evidence stacked against its propositions.

“We urge the LSB – as the oversight regulator – to reject the SRA’s ill-conceived scheme to create a dangerously complex marketplace for legal services. Flexibility for solicitors should never come at the expense of protection for consumers.”

When focusing on SRA claims that a price transparency will offer greater consumer choice and encourage legal service professionals to focus on the bespoke services they offer, the Law society have further commented: “Unnecessary complexity would make it much more difficult for consumers to reach informed choices about legal services. This could put consumers at risk and ultimately undermine trust in legal services.

“The SRA has not evidenced any strategy to mitigate the risk that multiple solicitor brands would result in consumers and the public being misled and losing confidence in the system.

“We are concerned that unmet legal demand would increase as vulnerable clients could become less confident about seeking legal advice. The regulator has even acknowledged that vulnerable clients are less likely to benefit from the remedies it proposes to mitigate consumer confusion.”

The Law Society conclude by claiming that a reform to regulated solicitors does not go far enough; the SRA and other regulatory bodies must do more than create a tiered system of solicitors, and that the focus should be on complete solicitor regulation.

They claim: “The Legal Services Board must apply the rules for changes to regulatory arrangements rigorously and reject the SRA’s rule change application because it is prejudicial to regulatory objectives and contrary to the public interest.”

One particular concern, levied by the Law society, involved unregulated practice and sole solicitors. They have said “This proposal removes some of the protections that clients benefit from if they use a regulated sole practitioner and a regulated firm.

“For example, a regulated sole practitioner and firm must have professional indemnity insurance equivalent to the SRA’s minimum terms and conditions, and a person with three years’ practicing experience, whereas a freelance solicitor would not need to purchase insurance to this level and would be free to deliver non-reserved services without prior work experience.

“It is unreasonable and unrealistic to expect clients to understand the difference between a recognised sole practice and a sole solicitor and the difference in the protection they might afford their clients.”

The LSB concluded, on the 3rd August in their final decision notice, by granting the SRA application for transparency reform in full: “The LSB has considered the SRA’s application against the criteria in paragraph 25(3) of Schedule 4 to the Act. It accordingly grants the application in full.”

When most industries are beginning to adopt a tripadvisor comparison model of goods, services and price, do the comments from The Law Society patronise consumers that are more information driven than at any other time? Or, are the SRA proposals extremely naïve and ill thought out?  

Martin Parrin

Martin is a Senior Content Writer for Today’s Conveyancer, Today’s Wills and Probate, Today’s Legal Cyber Risk and Today's Family Lawyer Having qualified as a teacher, Martin previously worked as a Secondary English Teacher that responsible for Head of Communications. After recently returning to the North West from Guernsey in the Channel Islands, Martin has left teaching to start a career in writing and pursue his lifelong passion with the written word.

1 Comment

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *