The Legal Services Board has launched a survey on
the cost of legal services regulation, and it would like us all to take part.
You’d have thought, wouldn’t you, that since the LSB is in
charge of regulation, it would already know how much it costs without asking us? But there you are: just one more thing to add
to the pile of Things I Don’t Understand and Probably Have No Right To, which
is a subset of the pile of Things I’m Not Going to Lose Any Sleep Over.
So what is the cost of regulation? Well, it is the IPReg practising fee
multiplied by the number of attorneys and entities that pay it. Plus gazillions of pounds’ worth of
chargeable attorney time spent drafting business terms and client care letters,
working out what a complaints handling procedure should look like and whether
the anti-money laundering regulations apply to them, and trying to persuade
their bank managers to open client accounts when the bank managers’ Official
Lists from Head Office say absolutely categorically no client accounts for
numpties who are not lawyers. Minus the
cost of the things we no longer have to do now we are regulated, which is,
well, which is negligible really.
(I would like to put it on record that my own firm has had
no problem at all with preparing an Anti-Money Laundering Policy, an Anti-Bribery
Policy, a Complaints Handling Policy, a We Love Diversity Policy, a Whistle-Blowing
Policy, an Anti-Bullying Policy, a Cider at Work Policy, a Tractor Parking Policy
and a Working on a Friday Policy. Most
of them can be summed up as “Don’t even think about it.” We do not have a client care letter because I
think that is a ridiculous notion. The clients
don’t care about us so I don’t see why we should care about them.)
It strikes me, however, that we should be careful how we
respond to the LSB’s survey. It would be
tempting to say that regulation costs way too much. But what if the LSB then says OK let’s reduce
the cost by abolishing IPReg and let everyone be regulated by the SRA instead? Surely there are economies of scale in this
model, it might say. And I do not think
this is quite the outcome we had in mind.
It is depressing to hear that “deregulation” is now one of
the LSB’s priorities. Can you envisage a
better way of keeping unemployment down and psychosis rates up than by tasking
people with building a completely new system and then unbuilding it again afterwards
like Lego®? Especially if you make them issue umpteen
consultation papers at each stage? Was
this just a magnificent government experiment into what happens when you try to
interfere with the natural course of capitalism?
If nothing else, it has taught me that my firm should also
have a Consultation Response Policy. And
it too should say, pretty much, “Don’t even think about it.”
No comments:
Post a Comment