CILEx supports CMA’s focus on transparency
CILEx supports CMA’s focus on transparency
15 December 2016
The CMA’s final report into the legal services market is a reminder of how far we have come to open up the legal services market, and of how much further we have to go. CILEx encourages price and services transparency that benefits consumers, and we look forward to working with our independent regulator CILEx Regulation, and others, as the report’s recommendations are taken forward.
CILEx recognised that the CMA’s interim report was unduly focused on the solicitor profession, and did not accurately reflect the significant regulatory changes that had placed Chartered Legal Executives on an equal footing. We therefore asked for the CMA in their final report to give fair consideration to other types of lawyer, including Chartered Legal Executives who operate under a more outcomes-focused and risk-based regulatory model. We hope that improved transparency for consumers will help achieve just that, though there remains scope for the CMA to better explore the options afforded by the business models of other providers such as Chartered Legal Executives and their capacity to ameliorate some of the problems highlighted in the report.
CILEx supports the principle of price and service transparency, and we encourage members to be as open as possible about their pricing structures and service models so consumers know what to expect. The majority of CILEx members though are employees of legal businesses, and therefore the regulatory mechanisms available to encourage transparency are not necessarily as applicable as they are to the businesses themselves.
We look forward to participating in the review of whether and how to improve access to redress for customers of unregulated providers. We expect it will highlight that consumers are unaware of the enhanced protections available to them of using a regulated professional. However, regulated professionals fund the enhanced consumer protection mechanisms, and if the review considers incorporating unregulated providers into these mechanisms it should also consider fair cost contributions.
We can foresee potential advantages in working towards making Legal Choices the initial go-to hub for consumers when they first engage with the legal services sector. CILEx supports the sharing of data in a way that can enhance information provision and the means to compare services and providers but the co-ordination, infra-structure and technical challenges of doing so effectively (when that data comes from a variety of sources) should not be underestimated. This is even more the case should such a hub develop over time into some sort of central register of all providers.
Such a hub should also not sit with any one single current frontline regulator if it is to provide the public with genuinely unbiased information. It must be housed and overseen by a genuinely independent consumer or regulatory body.
CILEx favours a holistic review of legal regulatory framework. However, it is a complex and balanced system and the MoJ may be better advised to do that over the medium term rather than tinker piecemeal with certain elements in isolation, such as the independence of the regulators. That said, from a CILEx perspective, the frontline regulator is, to all intents and purposes, already independent and CILEx is ready to engage in exploration of the next stage of the evolution of that independence.
ENDS