Regulatory regime must be simpler

A multi-layered maze is not what consumers want, says David Buchanan-cook

Having worked in regulatory roles for longer than I care to remember, I find myself once again wishing that I had a pound for every time I have heard this phrase, or a variation of it.

It seems that wherever there is a process of supervisory oversight or public protection someone will point to the watchdog and say – but who oversees them?

The phrase came quickly to mind when I read the Law Society of Scotland’s statement relating to the ongoing independent review of the regulation of the legal profession in Scotland – a review which is aiming to report to Ministers later this year.

As an organisation, the Scottish Legal Complaints Committee (SLCC) – the independent single gateway for all legal complaints in scotland–finds itself in agreement with much of what the Law Society has suggested. Like the Society, we have publicly supported the concept of entity regulation, and we welcome any proposals which provide better consumer pro- tection for those areas not currently covered by the regulatory regime.

The service provided by will writers is an obvious example where consumers are largely unaware that these services are not protected by regulation in the same way as those provided by solicitors. As a result there is no route to complain, nor any chance of redress when things go wrong or the service is of a poor standard.

Most significantly, the SLCC agrees that the current system for dealing with legal complaints is complex and confusing, and we have ourselves called for a simplified, streamlined service which is more accessible for consumers, and easier for them to understand. [#Reimagineregulation]

However, this is where the Law Society’s solution seems at odds with the general tenor of the argument. Based on the fact that the SLCC oversees the Law Society, yet no one directly oversees the SLCC, the Society suggests adding a further layer of governance to what is acknowledged to be an already over-complex process – the establishing of an independent ombudsman to oversee both bodies (and presumably the Faculty of Advocates too). In effect, a new guard to guard the existing one. Presumably, a body not unlike the Scottish Legal Services Ombudsman which was abolished and replaced by the SLCC in 2008.

[“Who will guard the guards?” is a quotationfromtheromanpoet,juvenal. Although it is often quoted in regulatory arguments, interestingly the original context and message was quite different. It comes from a poem in which he talks about the futility of safeguarding marital fidelity when his wife’s guards themselves are corruptible… as are those who might be employed to guard the guards.

And it’s that line of paranoid thought, potentially never-ending, which can result in a multi-layered, three-dimensional maze through which Theseus himself would be challenged to navigate.] Is that what consumers – those who use legal services – want or will benefit from? Proportionally, does a profession of under 12,000 members require a further (sixth) separate statutory body to regulate it?

The scope of the current review of legal regulation in Scotland is wide-rangingandtherecommendations could lead in a variety of directions.wewouldhopethat,in recognising that the current system is over-complex and impossible for consumers to grasp, the regime of the future will have fewer rather than more layers. David Buchanan-cook is head of oversight and communications at the Scottish Legal Complaints Commission