Regulation – in everyone’s interest

Our Regulatory Committee plays a crucial role in overseeing our regulatory functions.  Carole Ford, the lay convener to the committee, discusses some of its recent work and decisions

The Regulatory Committee performs a crucial binary role in the regulatory function of the Law Society.  The committee oversees the work of the regulatory sub-committees, all the way from initial training and entrance to the legal profession, through rules governing professional practice, to complaints handling and disciplinary issues, and it has the authority to make rules as necessary and contribute to all regulatory discussions and decisions.

Acting firmly in the interests of both the public and the profession, the Regulatory Committee must be chaired by a lay member, currently myself, a former secondary head teacher.  We operate independently of the Law Society’s Council, however we liaise closely with both the Council and the Board, to ensure a seamless regulatory regime.

Recent hot topics

Over the last year we have covered a number of matters, including keeping abreast of discussions with the Scottish Legal Complaints Commission (SLCC) on mutually agreed quick fixes to the regulations governing complaints handling, with the ultimate aim of streamlining the process.  These proposals will go to government for decision.  These decisions will inform changes to processes and to either guidance or the rules.

This year I provided to the committee a verbal account of an SLCC Consumer Panel round table discussion on vulnerable clients.    As a result of committee discussion, the issue of dealing appropriately with vulnerable clients will be included in an upcoming review of the expected outcomes of initial training for solicitors.

The current Legal Services Review has been regularly discussed, and the chair of the review, Esther Roberton, attended a committee meeting as part of the review process.  I had hoped to be participate in a further interview with the chair but diary commitments intervened.  I have written to her to express my personal view of the issues under review.

The current status of the Licensed Provider Regulatory Scheme has also been regularly discussed, and given the prolonged difficulties with this scheme and the apparent lack of interest in the current legal market, we agreed earlier this year that the Law Society should take the minimum action necessary to finalise the scheme and seek final authorisation.

Anti-money laundering has featured significantly in the work of the committee.  We have made the decision to delegate decision making powers to executive members of the Law Society in circumstances where there are no concerns.  We also agreed to electronic submission of certificates, with a requirement for only one signatory.

Regular matters

At each meeting we review the latest chief executive report on the Law Society’s annual plan, and provide verbal reports on regulatory matters discussed at Law Society Board and Council meetings.

We routinely monitor the work of the regulatory sub-committees, including procedural issues.  Recently we agreed on an extension from a maximum of two terms to three for members on committees which require a high degree of specific legal expertise, and which experience difficulties in recruitment.   

Regular review of remits and delegated powers is now standard practice for all regulatory sub-committees.  Currently only the Admissions sub-committee is considering changes and these will be considered in due course.  The remit of our own committee was also due for review this year.  However, in light of the imminent report from the Legal Services Review, it was decided to postpone this, to take account of any issues raised in the report.

Any other business

A number of other items are discussed, as required, often for information only to keep the committee abreast of current or possible future issues.  Such items have, this year, included mandatory risk management CPD for solicitors, an update on the current position on anti-money laundering applications, a clarification of the issues surrounding the Civil Litigation Act, the proposed regulation of claims management companies, the regulation of land agents and the Civil Legal Aid Quality Assurance sub-committee. 

The Complaints sub-committee also brought to our attention a specific disciplinary complaint and outcome, which had raised concerns, and we also considered the university re-accreditation annual report.

We’re a busy lot!