Legal Services Regulation: The Meaning of ‘Public Interest’ It is the latest in a series of reports by Professor Stephen Mayson (UCL Law School) examining the regulation of the legal services sector.

In its landmark report in 2020, Reforming Legal Services: Regulation Beyond Echo ChambersProfessor Mayson called All Legal service providers will be regulated. Currently only providers offering ‘reserved’ services (such as conducting court proceedings or preparing documents required for the sale and purchase of property) require permission from a legal services regulator, while those providing ‘non-reserved’ services (such as providing general services such as legal advice or will writing) don’t do it.

In his new report, Professor Mayson says some lawyers are pursuing their clients’ interests at the expense of the public interest, despite their claims to the contrary, and calls on all lawyers to “clearly state and record public interest justifications for their decisions and decisions”. actions”. This, he says, would be “a significant step forward.”

In the report, the public interest is defined as ensuring the legitimate and equal participation of individuals in society, as well as the protection of the basic principles of society (such as the rule of law and the administration of justice).

Its new report considers the Post Office scandal, in which more than 900 deputy postmasters were prosecuted for theft due to incorrect information from the Horizon computer system. This has been called Britain’s most widespread miscarriage of justice.

Professor Mayson, Honorary Professor of Law at UCL, said: “In pursuing the personal interests of their clients, these lawyers have forgotten that they are members of a public profession with duties to society at large (on whose behalf members of that profession are licensed to practice) and, as a result, they undertake their professional duties to the public.” They have the responsibility to fulfill their obligations for their benefit.

“Greater transparency and accountability would be an important step forward in protecting the reputation of the legal profession.

“Furthermore, if lawyers’ conduct is questioned, lawyers’ judgments can be tested openly (within the appropriate limits of client confidentiality) which will lead to better understanding for all.”

Professor Mayson highlighted in his report that the inappropriate use of confidentiality agreements was a current example of unprofessional behavior by lawyers.

This includes situations where NDAs are used to prevent the investigation of potentially criminal or wrongful acts or to prevent an injured party from seeking justice, he said, adding that their use regarding Weinstein’s conduct is one of the best-known examples.

Professor Mayson also addressed other concerns such as the misuse of NDAs in the case of the Post Office scandal, as well as advancing a case contrary to evidence, failure to disclose relevant evidence and obstruction of the course of justice.

He said: “This list represents a serious indictment of the conduct of legal advisers in the Horizon cases and there appears to be little doubt that each incident represents an example of unprofessional conduct.

“The extent of the injustices, the period over which the misconduct occurred, the number of lawyers involved and the general observation that both the Solicitors Regulation Authority and the Bar Standards Board have identified an increase in misleading reporting by solicitors. The courts all strongly suggest that there is a widespread and permanent transformation in the nature of the legal services market.” somehow suggests.

“There is no point in saying that the evidence of so many discreditable actions by lawyers that emerged during the investigation into (the Post Office scandal) is consistent with the obligations of members of the public profession and their duty to the public interest. and in the interests of justice or (even) in the interests of their clients.

“If this type of behavior is allowed to continue or becomes more prevalent, the legal industry will be in danger of being seen as a harmful or ‘harmful’ market.”

Professor Mayson explains in his report that this is a market that produces outcomes that harm society or citizens or exploit the vulnerable.

“I can have no doubt that the prevailing interest must always be the public interest. Therefore, despite the department’s reluctance to prioritize regulatory objectives in the Legal Services Act, the protection and promotion of the public interest must be the overriding objective to which all other objectives are subordinate.

“A clearer consideration of the public interest should encourage better articulation of the basis for any conclusion or action and the motivation supporting it, thus enabling a more informed testing of the claim being made,” the report says.

Professor Mayson’s review explored issues raised by a 2016 study by the Competition and Markets Authority, which found that the legal services sector was not working well for individual consumers and small businesses and that the current regulatory framework was unsustainable in the long term.

The 2020 report supported this conclusion and said the legal framework under the Legal Services Act 2007 was outdated, creating a regulatory gap where some consumers were exposed to unregulated providers with little or no chance of redress if any harm was caused. The report recommended that the main purpose in regulating legal services should be to promote and protect the public interest.

Earlier this year the Justice Select Committee said the Government would be “wrong to ignore the conclusion” of Professor Mayson’s 2020 report.

Solicitors Regulation Authority (SRA) guidance currently requires solicitors to be able to justify their decisions and actions to demonstrate compliance with their obligations under the SRA’s regulatory arrangements. This new report particularly strengthens this requirement in the public interest.

Links

Media Contact

Nick Hodgson

• E: nick.hodgson (at) ucl.ac.uk
• Mobile: 07769 240209