Scotland’s judiciary has said it will “resist with all its strength” plans to overhaul the way the country’s legal profession is regulated.
Senior judges claim the reform proposals are an “unwarranted and unacceptable” interference by the Scottish Government, with the most radical plans presenting a “clear threat” to the rule of law and democracy.
In the judiciary’s response to a government consultation on the issue, Lord Carloway, the Lord President, also claimed that the survey seemed to proceed on the “fundamentally flawed” basis that the Scottish legal profession currently regulates itself.
The judge further lambasted the questionnaire saying the proposals were of the “utmost constitutional importance” and should not be reduced to a “ranking or tick box exercise”.
The Scottish Government, who have put forward three different options for reform, claim the plans range from light-touch regulatory change to a complete overhaul of the current system.
However, Lord Carloway said all three options were undesirable and would mean a shift to the legal profession being accountable to parliament, rather than the Lord President and the Court of Session.
In a summary of the judiciary’s response, the Lord President said: “In each one of the three models of regulation proposed in this consultation, the power to regulate the legal profession would be removed from the court and transferred to a body responsible to parliament.
“This would create an unwarranted and unacceptable interference by the government and parliament with the judiciary. To be clear, such an interference with role of the Lord President and the Court of Session in the manner proposed in this consultation is, in our opinion, an interference with the rule of law.
“The judiciary will resist with all its strength this, and any other attempt by government or parliament to remove the court’s regulatory powers.”
He added: “Political regulation is simply not appropriate under any circumstances.”
The consultation was launched in response to concerns about potential conflicts of interest in the complaints system that currently exists.
At present, the Law Society of Scotland’s Regulatory Committee is responsible for its oversight function and is made up 50/50 of solicitor and lay members. It must also have a lay convener, effectively creating a non-solicitor majority.
The Faculty of Advocates also has a regulatory function delegated to it by the Court of Session. The court is responsible for regulating the professional practice, conduct and discipline of advocates under the Legal Services (Scotland) Act 2010.
Under the new proposals, option one would see the creation of a new body to replace the regulatory duties of the Law Society and the Faculty of Advocates, while the second option would be the creation of a new body as an additional layer of oversight on the existing system. The third proposal would see each of the current regulators create committees that report to the Scottish Parliament.
The proposals are based on a 2018 report by Esther Roberton which found that the regulatory and complaints handling system was too complex and recommended that there should be a new regulator.
However, Lord Carloway claimed a “lack of understanding” on the role of the lord president and the court - “and the fundamental democratic principles which underpin them”- discredited the report’s recommendations.
He also questioned the need for any major reform, saying it was “unclear on what basis a wholesale regulatory reform to the legal services market in Scotland is necessary or appropriate”.
A new regulatory regime was put in place by the Scottish Parliament in just 2010 in the form of the Legal Services (Scotland) Act.
The judges asked why the Scottish Government “is now reconsidering the regime which it put in place only just over a decade ago”.
The response added: “We acknowledge that it is desirable to improve transparency in the system and the complaints process. However, we are of the opinion that improvements to these aspects of the system can be achieved without the need to overhaul the entire regulatory framework.”
A Scottish Government spokesman said: “We thank the judiciary for their response to the consultation, which has generated a wide variety of opinions, and will carefully consider their views.
“Scotland has one of the best legal professions in the world – however improvements are needed to further support access to justice in modern Scotland. Ministers will carefully consider all the consultation responses and a report will be published in due course.”
Why are you making commenting on The Herald only available to subscribers?
It should have been a safe space for informed debate, somewhere for readers to discuss issues around the biggest stories of the day, but all too often the below the line comments on most websites have become bogged down by off-topic discussions and abuse.
heraldscotland.com is tackling this problem by allowing only subscribers to comment.
We are doing this to improve the experience for our loyal readers and we believe it will reduce the ability of trolls and troublemakers, who occasionally find their way onto our site, to abuse our journalists and readers. We also hope it will help the comments section fulfil its promise as a part of Scotland's conversation with itself.
We are lucky at The Herald. We are read by an informed, educated readership who can add their knowledge and insights to our stories.
That is invaluable.
We are making the subscriber-only change to support our valued readers, who tell us they don't want the site cluttered up with irrelevant comments, untruths and abuse.
In the past, the journalist’s job was to collect and distribute information to the audience. Technology means that readers can shape a discussion. We look forward to hearing from you on heraldscotland.com
Comments & Moderation
Readers’ comments: You are personally liable for the content of any comments you upload to this website, so please act responsibly. We do not pre-moderate or monitor readers’ comments appearing on our websites, but we do post-moderate in response to complaints we receive or otherwise when a potential problem comes to our attention. You can make a complaint by using the ‘report this post’ link . We may then apply our discretion under the user terms to amend or delete comments.
Post moderation is undertaken full-time 9am-6pm on weekdays, and on a part-time basis outwith those hours.
Read the rules hereLast Updated:
Report this comment Cancel