The following article was contributed by Freshfields Bruckhaus Deringer partner and SRA board member, Geoff Nicholas
Last week, the President of the Law Society wrote unequivocally about the current SRA consultation on reforming the Solicitor’s Handbook, named ‘Looking to the Future’.
As a practising solicitor and a recently-appointed SRA Board member, I think it is important to respond to those comments to ensure that the proposals being put forward by the SRA are properly understood.
Our proposals for extending the range of firms where solicitors can work to include unregulated providers will increase choice for those seeking legal advice. This will help to ensure there is a healthy, innovative and modern legal market that is responsive to consumer needs, as required by the Legal Services Act 2007.
Access to high quality legal advice from solicitors working outside authorised firms will enhance both those services and public protection. And we believe that individual solicitors should be able to practise as solicitors regardless of who their employer may be, in order to both widen public access to justice and to afford solicitors greater career opportunities.
I do not accept the suggestion made by the Law Society that these proposals will lead to a two-tier profession.
All solicitors will continue to be subject to the same high standards of education, training and ethics – standards that are more clearly articulated in the proposed new code. There will, of course, still be both regulated and unregulated firms in the market, as there are now. By necessity, different protections apply to each, as a consequence of the framework set up under the Legal Services Act.
Importantly, access to the Legal Ombudsman will be unaffected, as this applies to services provided by “authorised persons”, including solicitors operating outside of regulated firms.
There will also be no reduction to supervision arrangements. Indeed, the proposed obligation to ensure continuing competence of solicitors wherever they practise is a new requirement designed to strengthen the management of solicitors. Likewise, the proposed reform to the conflict rules does not “narrow” the ability to act, as suggested by the Law Society, rather it widens it, to allow any case to be taken, subject to informed consent, save where there is an actual conflict.
I do not understand the basis for the suggestion that we are attempting to dilute legal professional privilege (LPP) status or make it more difficult to obtain. This is simply not true. The code does not address this. The application and enforcement of LPP status is a matter of substantive law. Further, there is nothing in our proposals that changes the law of privilege. And the proposal in relation to a solicitor’s duty of confidentiality will apply to all solicitors whether working in authorised firms, unregulated firms or in-house.
Our proposals are about increasing choice for the public and business users of legal services. It makes little sense that under current restrictions, solicitors are among the only people unable to offer legal advice through an unregulated business. Indeed, the proposals offer opportunities for those the Law Society represents.
The SRA Board wants to hear the views of all concerned. Throughout the consultation, the SRA is engaging closely with the Law Society and more widely with the profession and the users of legal services, just as we did while developing the proposals.
I would encourage all solicitors to read the consultation for themselves and respond to our proposals.
