The list of respondents is in Annex 2 and the answers can be found on the website of the LSB. 3. Respondents supported the aims behind the draft statement and there was broad agreement that it is important for legal services regulators to have assurance of the continued competence of authorized persons. Section 49(2) of the Act provides for the LSB to prepare and issue a policy statement on each matter and, in preparing it, to have regard to the principle that its primary role is to supervise approved regulators.
None of the regulators have comprehensive and up-to-date information to determine the qualification levels of their authorized persons by point of qualification. When informed about existing arrangements, most of the public believe that regulators should take more specific steps to ensure continued jurisdiction. After considering the responses, we remain of the view that it is important to establish a policy statement of permanent jurisdiction.
We have included a summary of these measures in Appendix 3 to give a sense of the variety of responses received. Some respondents said that some of the regulators already meet all the outcomes and therefore no further action is required (Faculty Office, Chancery Bar, City of London Law Society, CIPA, CITMA, Society of Scrivener Notaries). 48.In the 'expectations' section of the draft policy statement there were certain activities that we proposed that all regulators should undertake, and separately examples of measures that regulators should consider when determining their approach.
Regarding outcome (b), our intention in preparing the draft statement was that regulators should take steps to ensure that they have a good understanding of the levels of competence in their regulated community. Regulators are already expected to take these principles into account, as set out in section 28(3) of the Act. We also note that some regulators are already undertaking work to meet the results and expectations, pending the publication of the final statement.
We maintain our view that regulators should seek to meet the findings and expectations within 18 months of the publication of the statement. We expect regulators to prioritize progress on outcomes (a), (b) and (d) and the relevant expectations, and believe that these should be achievable no later than 18 months after the statement is issued. Some noted that common core competencies would be difficult to identify due to the diversity of the profession (OISC).
The role of regulators is to introduce measures that meet the expectations set out in the policy statement. The LSB has taken due account of its obligations under the Equality Act 2010, including addressing the public sector's equality obligations.24 We have carefully considered the responses to the consultation on our draft equality policy statement. The LSB considered the likely impact of the policy statement on approved regulators, regulators, authorized persons and consumers.
We believe that the policy statement is an effective and proportionate means of ensuring that regulators have appropriate measures in place to provide the necessary assurance about ongoing developments.
Changes to the draft statement of policy
16-17 The LSB expects regulators to demonstrate that they have given consideration to all the measures set out in this section. Regulators must be able to demonstrate that evidence-based decisions have been made about which of these measures are appropriate to implement for those they regulate. Where a regulator has determined that any of the identified measures are not appropriate to implement, the LSB expects the regulator to clearly demonstrate why such measures are not appropriate for those they regulate.
18–19 The LSB expects regulators to demonstrate that they have met the expectations set out in this section. LSB expects regulators to consider considerations when determining how to meet outcomes and expectations. 20-21 The LSB expects regulators to demonstrate that they have considered the competencies set out in paragraph 19 and make evidence-based decisions about which of these competencies are appropriate for inclusion in their competency frameworks or equivalents.
Where a regulator has determined that any of the powers identified are not appropriate, the LSB expects the regulator to clearly state why and set out what alternative powers it has adopted to meet outcome 13(a). 22-23 In pursuing outcome 13(b), regulators should adopt approaches to routinely collect information relevant to those they regulate. 25-26 The LSB expects regulators to demonstrate that they have considered the types of information set out in paragraph 23 and made evidence-based decisions about which of these types of information are appropriate to collect.
When a supervisor has determined that one of the identified types of information is not appropriate, the LSB expects the supervisor to demonstrate why and explain the alternative types of information it has used to comply with outcome 13(b). 28-29 The LSB expects supervisors to demonstrate that they have considered the measures described in paragraph 27 and made evidence-based decisions about which of these measures are appropriate to take. Where a regulator has determined that any of the identified measures are not appropriate, the LSB expects the regulator to demonstrate why and explain what alternative measures it has taken to achieve Result 13(c).
32 Regulators should provide transparency of their approach and clearly define the process of when and how they will take corrective action. 33-34 The LSB expects regulators to demonstrate that they have considered the approaches set out in paragraph 32 and made evidence-based decisions about which of these approaches are. Where a regulator has determined that any of the identified elements are not appropriate, the LSB expects the regulator to state why and decide.
Responses to the consultation
Summary of potential measures
If remedial action is to be taken against an individual, a careful assessment of mitigating factors will be essential, as there may be cases where health, work practices and other factors may undermine competence. Those on the educational path to practice and those in the early stages of their careers should have compulsory training and the opportunity to develop the skills, knowledge, attributes and behavior to maintain their competence during practice. Those entering legal practice need to be equipped to understand competence, how to maintain it, how it can be undermined, what support is there if they have concerns and feel they can seek help when they need it.
These are skills that are often discussed as lacking in the training of lawyers and are in fact essential to providing better services to consumers of legal services. These are often cited by the [Legal Ombudsman] as the main cause of complaints against legal service providers. Information gathering Legal Futures article https://www.legalfutures.co.uk/latest-news/pi-claims-leaving-some-clients- better-off-legal-ombudsman-warns.
Designing interventions LSB research https://legalservicesboard.org.uk/news/lsb-research-highlights-the-need-for-the-legal-sector-to-provide-better-support-to-vulnerable-consumers. LSB's research into consumer vulnerability] reflects the existing evidence that people are inherently vulnerable when approaching a legal professional, both because of their situation and because the law and the legal system are difficult to understand and navigate . The proposed improvements include the possibility of an inclusive design approach, where the standard approach is based on the needs of people when they are most vulnerable.
Responding to mistakes – the importance of admitting mistakes early, individual and organizational learning from mistakes, to lead to a legal culture where the response to mistakes is not fear and blame. Peer review Engineering Council • [The Engineering Council's CPD review process] is based on peer review: each sampled CPD record is checked by a practitioner assessor, with 'appropriate feedback' returned to the registrant.
