Legal Village

Revolution at a gentlemanly pace

Posted 15/01/2007 by Fiona Woolf

Sitting at my desk, as the first Law Society President blogger, news reaches of me of another bold step into the future – that the Lord Chief Justice is to de-wig judges hearing civil cases in the High Court and the Court of Appeal from October.  For me it’s always exciting to hear about how the judiciary continues to modernise itself apace.

With all this modernisation, it’s a bit strange to find myself in an arcane world of woolsacks, knickerbockers and breeches. The Legal Services Bill, which the Law Society is taking an active interest in, currently finds itself at the committee stage in the House of Lords – which is a very curious place to be.

Even though this is Government legislation, the Law Society has been grinding through the detail in the Bill and working with officials from the Department for Constitutional Affairs (DCA) to ensure we get the best deal for the profession. I spent Monday afternoon briefing Baroness Ashton, who is taking the lead for the Government, and lobbying Conservative peers before the committee stage started the next day. Our efforts were rewarded as Ashton said she’d go away and think about a number of concerns we’ve raised. She asked us to suggest amendments and really what that means is a great opportunity for us to persuade them what is needed.

This all might sound a bit last minute, with the first day of committee beginning the next day, but Monday was the first day back from Christmas recess for Parliamentarians. If only I had been so lucky – over the holiday period at the Law Society we’ve been working hard crafting amendments and accompanying arguments.

On the day of committee stage itself I turned up at 2:30pm during question time, finding the House quite full – but once question time was over the House rapidly emptied, leaving a handful of peers to go through the Legal Service Bill amendments one by one. There were only around 10 peers actively engaged in the debate.

Amendments were tabled and debated. Ashton clearly listened and if she felt that there was a good argument, she said that she would think about it and would hold discussions with peers or with her own officials. The amendments were then withdrawn after some discussion – the idea being that if the Government does not accept the amendments or offer either a compromise or a convincing rebuttal, a vote will be taken at the next stage (report).

The key battle for us will be trying to secure light-touch regulation for the profession. At our meeting on Monday, we pointed out to Ashton that the Bill doesn’t say what the Legal Services Board (LSB) – the new oversight regulator for the legal profession – is there to do, which you would imagine is quite important. She accepted the problem and has asked us to propose some wording to tighten this up, which is a really good opportunity to nail this one down once and for all and make clear that the LSB is there to supervise, not to take over the responsibilities of the front-line regulator.

Despite the gentlemanly pace of the Lords, the Government is proposing a swift timetable for change. All of this might be with us in reality – the LSB, the Office for Legal Complaints and Alternative Business Structures – quicker than you might think. The Department for Constitutional Affairs is already talking about implementation, with the possibility of seeing the LSB chair in place by the end of 2007 – so we will have to work very hard on this for the next 12 months.

At 7:30, upon reaching amendment 32, the Chamber suddenly filled with bishops gearing up for fierce debate on the Sexual Orientation Regulations, which brought the first day of Committee on our Bill to a close.

Coming up next: right after the SGM meeting on the future of legal aid I’m hotfooting it over to India to try and progress our market access rights. I will let you know how I got on in my next entry.