<\/h3>\r\n 02\/06\/2021 - SRA Professional Indemnity Insurance \u2013 Cyber Cover Consultation<\/a><\/h2>\r\nCLLS Professional Rules and Regulation committee's response to the SRA Professional Indemnity Insurance \u2013 Cyber Cover Consultation<\/p>
![\"Download](\"https:\/\/archive.clls.org\/wp-content\/uploads\/pdf.gif\")
<\/a><\/div><\/li>27\/09\/2018 - CLLS PRRC response to the SRA on Reporting Concerns Consultation<\/a><\/h2>\r\nThe response by the CLLS Professional Rules and Regulation Committee to the SRA Reporting Concerns Consultation.<\/p>
<\/a><\/div><\/li>15\/06\/2018 - Protecting the Users of Legal Services - SRA Consultation<\/a><\/h2>\r\n<\/p>
<\/a><\/div><\/li>20\/12\/2017 - Looking to the Future Phase II Handbook Reforms<\/a><\/h2>\r\n<\/p>
<\/a><\/div><\/li>20\/12\/2017 - \u201cLooking to the future: better information, more choice\u201d<\/a><\/h2>\r\nResponse of the CLLS Professional Rules and Regulation Committee to the SRA Consultation \u201cLooking to the future: better information, more choice\u201d<\/p>
<\/a><\/div><\/li>19\/09\/2016 - CLLS Response - Looking to the Future - SRA Accounts Rules Review - 19 09 16<\/a><\/h2>\r\n<\/p>
<\/a><\/div><\/li>14\/09\/2016 - Response to SRA Handbook Review: Looking to the future - flexibility and public protection<\/a><\/h2>\r\n<\/p>
<\/a><\/div><\/li>24\/03\/2016 - Response to the SRA Consultation on The Insurance Act 2015 and Consequential Changes to the Minimum Terms and Conditions of Professional Indemnity Insurance<\/a><\/h2>\r\n<\/p>
<\/a><\/div><\/li>10\/03\/2016 - Minutes of the Meeting of the CLLS Professional Rules & Regulation Committee Thursday 10th March 2016<\/a><\/h2>\r\n<\/p>
<\/a><\/div><\/li>17\/09\/2015 - CLLS Consultation Response - Professional Rules and Regulation Committee -Protecting Clients Financial Interests - 14 09 15<\/a><\/h2>\r\n<\/p>
<\/a><\/div><\/li>16\/07\/2015 - Response to the Law Society\u2019s discussion paper on the Legal Ombudsman\u2019s (LeO) case fee and funding<\/a><\/h2>\r\n<\/p>
<\/a><\/div><\/li>10\/06\/2015 - Response to the Consultation on the SRA Regulatory Reform Programme<\/a><\/h2>\r\n<\/p>
<\/a><\/div><\/li>18\/02\/2015 - Response to LSB Strategic Plan 2015-18 and Busines Plan 2015-16<\/a><\/h2>\r\n<\/p>
<\/a><\/div><\/li>11\/02\/2015 - Response to the SRA Separate Business Rule Consultation<\/a><\/h2>\r\n<\/p>
<\/a><\/div><\/li>28\/01\/2015 - Response to SRA Consultation on Proportionate Regulation: reporting accountant requirements<\/a><\/h2>\r\n<\/p>
<\/a><\/div><\/li>17\/12\/2014 - Response to Consultation on SRA's Regulation of Consumer Credit Activities<\/a><\/h2>\r\n<\/p>
<\/a><\/div><\/li>16\/12\/2014 - Response to the SRA's Consultation on Overseas Accounts Rules<\/a><\/h2>\r\n<\/p>
<\/a><\/div><\/li>03\/07\/2014 - Response to further SRA consultation on proposed changes to the registered European lawyer regime<\/a><\/h2>\r\nThe Committee responded to the SRA\u2019s further consultation on its proposed amendments to the Handbook. The response commented specifically on the proposal to apply the conduct provisions to solicitors within foreign firms in the same way as it was proposed they would apply to RELs within an EEP.\r\n\r\n<\/p>
<\/a><\/div><\/li>03\/07\/2014 - Response to SRA Consultation Paper on Multi-Disciplinary Practices<\/a><\/h2>\r\nThe consultation sought views on policy changes and associated amendments to the SRA Handbook which were aimed at achieving a proportionate regulatory framework for the authorisation and supervision of multi-disciplinary alternative business structures providing legal and non\u2013legal services. One driver behind the consultation was the SRA\u2019s concern that some of the rules in the SRA Handbook may have become an impediment to the effective licensing and regulation of some licensed bodies; and in particular, those rules that require all legal activity within an SRA authorised MDP to be SRA regulated. The CLLS response argued that if non-Reserved activity is not regulated when it is carried out by a non-Authorised person, then it need not be regulated when it is carried out by a better-qualified Authorised Person. The CLLS argued that this regulatory asymmetry means that solicitors, as Authorised Persons, are commercially disadvantaged in comparison with non-Authorised Persons, when doing the same tasks. The CLLS response raised some further concerns, (including the fact that the SRA\u2019s regulatory proposals in this area do not appear to be based on a comprehensive risk analysis of the field), and responded to the specific consultation questions. <\/p>
<\/a><\/div><\/li>23\/06\/2014 - Response to SRA consultation: Proportionate regulation - changes to minimum compulsory professional indemnity cover<\/a><\/h2>\r\nThis consultation paper contained proposals which the SRA stated were aimed at reducing the regulatory burden, providing targeted regulation and increasing competition. The proposals form part of a wider SRA review of the scope of cover under the Minimum Terms and Conditions. The CLLS submission in response supported in principle the idea of reducing the insurance costs burden in a manner which would allow firms to consider the appropriate level of cover they need (subject to a mandatory minimum). However, it expressed the view that the SRA needs to have consulted with the insurers before making specific proposals. It went on to state that the consultation paper had adduced no evidence that the proposals would in fact attract the costs reductions they are aiming for, and that a reduction in the minimum insurance requirement may well have no effect on the premiums charged by insurance companies. It stressed the need for the proposals to be evidence-based, and strongly recommended that any reform be delayed until the 2015 renewal.<\/p>
<\/a><\/div><\/li>20\/06\/2014 - Response to SRA consultation: Compensation Arrangements Review - the introduction of an eligibility criteria<\/a><\/h2>\r\nThe consultation invited views on the SRA\u2019s arrangements for compensating clients who suffer financial loss due to dishonesty, failure to account or civil liability of uninsured practitioners. The CLLS submission responded to the specific consultation questions. The submission also expressed, more generally, a concern that the SRA was consulting on an important topic that may have significant implications, in particular for consumers who do suffer losses, without explaining (i) clearly what has driven the proposal or (ii) providing supporting evidence, that only the SRA can provide, about the impact of the proposal.<\/p>
<\/a><\/div><\/li>19\/06\/2014 - Response to SRA consultation on Proportionate regulation: changes to reporting accounting requirements<\/a><\/h2>\r\nThis consultation paper contained two proposals: removal of the mandatory requirement that firms must submit an annual accountant's report to the SRA, and requiring COFAs to sign a declaration that they are satisfied that their respective firms are managing their client accounts in accordance with the SRA Account Rules. The proposals form part of an SRA programme to reform its regulatory regime \u201cto reduce unnecessary burdens and provide flexibility of approach to deliver good financial management\u201d. The submission responded to the specific consultation questions, and argued more generally that the consultation was premature, and that no changes should be made to the current reporting accountant regime until such time as the general review of the SRA accounts rules had been completed. <\/p>
<\/a><\/div><\/li>02\/06\/2014 - Response to SRA consultation \u201cAnnual keeping of the roll exercise\u201d<\/a><\/h2>\r\nThe consultation sought views on proposals to remove \u201cthe unnecessary and over burdensome process which requires solicitors who do not hold practising certificates to complete a yearly online application and pay a fee if they wish their name to remain on the roll of solicitors\u201d. The Submission broadly agreed with the consultation proposal to stop the annual updating process while keeping the power for the SRA to carry out updates when it thinks these are needed. It also broadly agreed with the proposal\u2019s expressed purpose, being \u2018to remove the unnecessary and burdensome process\u2019 involved with solicitors who do not have Practising Certificates (\u2018PCs\u2019) having to renew their roll applications annually. However, the Submission also raised concerns about the failure of the Consultation Paper to address the impact of remaining on the roll in any detail, including in relation to the status of undertakings given by non-practising solicitors who remain on the roll. It also raised concerns about some of the consequences that might arise were the annual updating process to be dispensed with. <\/p>
<\/a><\/div><\/li>02\/06\/2014 - Response to SRA consultation \u201cRed Tape Initiative: Residual client balances\u201d<\/a><\/h2>\r\nThe consultation sought views on proposals to amend the SRA Account Rules 2011 relating to how practitioners deal with client money they are unable to return to clients at the end of a matter (residual client balances), including the processes surrounding the withdrawal of such funds and the basis for distribution to charities. The Submission in response noted that the CLLS supports a proposal to increase the level at which practitioners can self-certify transfers of residual client balances, although it noted that there are differing views within the CLLS about the level at which SRA authorisation should be required. The submission also expressed concern that a significant increase in the self-certification level should be balanced by appropriate but proportional checks and balances. Furthermore, it agreed with the SRA\u2019s view that it ought not to restrict the charities to which residual balances should be transferred. <\/p>
<\/a><\/div><\/li>15\/04\/2014 - Proposed Changes in the Registered European Lawyer Regime<\/a><\/h2>\r\n<\/p>
<\/a><\/div><\/li>11\/02\/2014 - Response to LSB consultation on its draft 2014\/15 Business Plan<\/a><\/h2>\r\nThe response highlighted the amount that the City firms pay annually towards the regulatory and \u2018permitted purposes\u2019 costs of the legal sector, and expressed concern about the absence of the item \u201cMapping the Unregulated Market\u201d from the LSB\u2019s planned research programme. The response called on the LSB to answer a question that it had posed in an earlier consultation (\u201cEnhancing consumer protection, reducing regulatory restrictions\u201d) namely \u201cthere is a question about the relative balance of regulatory focus. Is the current balance of regulation right or are there areas where deregulation may be appropriate?\u2019\u201c\r\n\r\n\r\n<\/p>
<\/a><\/div><\/li>11\/02\/2014 - Response to SRA consultation: Proposal to increase the SRA's internal fining powers<\/a><\/h2>\r\nThe consultation paper invited views on the SRA\u2019s proposal to increase the current level of its fining powers for \u2018traditional\u2019 firms (i.e. non-ABS firms) from the current level of \u00a32,000, and to enable the SRA to agree (rather than impose) fines of a more significant amount with the regulated person concerned under its existing policy of agreeing the outcome of an investigation under its Regulatory Settlements Agreements policy. The response commented in detail on the consultation proposals, and questioned the consultation paper\u2019s presumption that the disciplinary regime that currently applies to ABS firms should be extended to all regulated firms. <\/p>
<\/a><\/div><\/li>26\/11\/2013 - Response to LSB consultation on Chairs of regulatory bodies: Consultation on an amendment to the Internal Governance Rules to require that the Chairs of the Boards of the regulatory arms of each applicable approved regulator be a lay person.<\/a><\/h2>\r\nThe consultation paper focussed on a proposed amendment to the Internal Governance Rules to require that the Chairs of the Boards of the regulatory arms of each \u201capplicable approved regulator\u201d be a lay person. In its response, the Committee raised a number of points, including that it saw \u201clittle merit in a rule change which necessarily narrows the field of candidates for the role of Chair of these bodies, where no evidence is given to show that the presence of a non-lay Chair has meaningfully impeded the independence of the regulator\u201d.<\/p>
<\/a><\/div><\/li>09\/09\/2013 - Review of the Legal Services Regulatory Framework: CLLS Submission to the Ministry of Justice<\/a><\/h2>\r\nReview of the Legal Services Regulatory Framework: CLLS Submission to the Ministry of Justice.<\/p>
<\/a><\/div><\/li>13\/08\/2013 - Response to Committee on Standards in Public Life Consultation on Lobbying Issues and Questions<\/a><\/h2>\r\n<\/p>
<\/a><\/div><\/li>24\/07\/2013 - Minutes of Meeting held in June 2013<\/a><\/h2>\r\nMinutes of Meeting held in June 2013<\/p>
<\/a><\/div><\/li>08\/07\/2013 - Response to SRA Consultation on New Overseas Rules<\/a><\/h2>\r\nResponse to SRA Consultation on New Overseas Rules<\/p>
<\/a><\/div><\/li>07\/07\/2013 - Response to SRA Consultation on New Overseas Rules \u2013 Comments on Annexes<\/a><\/h2>\r\nResponse to SRA Consultation on New Overseas Rules \u2013 Comments on Annexes<\/p>
<\/a><\/div><\/li>04\/07\/2013 - Response to SRA consultation Red Tape Initiative Phase 2: Removing unnecessary regulations and simplifying processes<\/a><\/h2>\r\nResponse to SRA consultation Red Tape Initiative Phase 2: Removing unnecessary regulations and simplifying processes<\/p>
<\/a><\/div><\/li>19\/04\/2013 - Response to SRA consultation: Indicative guidance on financial penalties<\/a><\/h2>\r\nResponse to SRA consultation: Indicative guidance on financial penalties<\/p>
<\/a><\/div><\/li>25\/03\/2013 - Response to SRA Consultation on Handbook Amendments Relating to International<\/a><\/h2>\r\nResponse to SRA Consultation on Handbook Amendments Relating to International Practice <\/p>
<\/a><\/div><\/li>12\/03\/2013 - Response to the LSB Consultation on its Draft Business Plan 2013<\/a><\/h2>\r\nResponse to the LSB Consultation on its Draft Business Plan 2013<\/p>
<\/a><\/div><\/li>11\/03\/2013 - Minutes of Meeting held in February 2013<\/a><\/h2>\r\nMinutes of Meeting held in February 2013<\/p>
<\/a><\/div><\/li>22\/01\/2013 - Response to SRA Consultation on Co-operation Agreements<\/a><\/h2>\r\nResponse to SRA Consultation on Co-operation Agreements<\/p>
<\/a><\/div><\/li>15\/08\/2012 - Response to SRA consultation on The Future of Authorised Professional Firms<\/a><\/h2>\r\nResponse to SRA consultation on The Future of Authorised Professional Firms<\/p>
<\/a><\/div><\/li>12\/04\/2012 - Response to HMG Consultation on Introducing a Statutory Register of Lobbyists<\/a><\/h2>\r\nResponse to HMG Consultation on Introducing a Statutory Register of Lobbyists<\/p>
<\/a><\/div><\/li>14\/02\/2012 - Response to the SRA's<\/a><\/h2>\r\nResponse to the SRA's \"Regulation of International Practice\" Consultation<\/p>
<\/a><\/div><\/li>17\/01\/2012 - Response to SRA consultation \u201cSRA financial protection review\u201d<\/a><\/h2>\r\nResponse to SRA consultation \u201cSRA financial protection review\u201d<\/p>
<\/a><\/div><\/li>17\/01\/2012 - Minutes of the Meeting held in December 2011<\/a><\/h2>\r\nMinutes of the Meeting held in December 2011<\/p>
<\/a><\/div><\/li>26\/10\/2011 - Minutes from Meeting held in June 2011<\/a><\/h2>\r\nMinutes from Meeting held in June 2011<\/p>
<\/a><\/div><\/li>11\/07\/2011 - Response to SRA Consultation<\/a><\/h2>\r\nResponse to SRA Consultation \"Alternative Business Structures Fee Structure\"<\/p>
<\/a><\/div><\/li>26\/04\/2011 - Response to SRA Consultation<\/a><\/h2>\r\nResponse to SRA Consultation \"Future Client Financial Protection Arrangements\" <\/p>
<\/a><\/div><\/li>28\/02\/2011 - CLLS Response to the SRA Architecture of Change Part 2 Consultation<\/a><\/h2>\r\nCLLS Response to the SRA Architecture of Change Part 2 Consultation<\/p>
02\/06\/2021 - SRA Professional Indemnity Insurance \u2013 Cyber Cover Consultation<\/a><\/h2>\r\nCLLS Professional Rules and Regulation committee's response to the SRA Professional Indemnity Insurance \u2013 Cyber Cover Consultation<\/p>
<\/a><\/div><\/li>27\/09\/2018 - CLLS PRRC response to the SRA on Reporting Concerns Consultation<\/a><\/h2>\r\nThe response by the CLLS Professional Rules and Regulation Committee to the SRA Reporting Concerns Consultation.<\/p>
<\/a><\/div><\/li>15\/06\/2018 - Protecting the Users of Legal Services - SRA Consultation<\/a><\/h2>\r\n<\/p>
<\/a><\/div><\/li>20\/12\/2017 - Looking to the Future Phase II Handbook Reforms<\/a><\/h2>\r\n<\/p>
<\/a><\/div><\/li>20\/12\/2017 - \u201cLooking to the future: better information, more choice\u201d<\/a><\/h2>\r\nResponse of the CLLS Professional Rules and Regulation Committee to the SRA Consultation \u201cLooking to the future: better information, more choice\u201d<\/p>
<\/a><\/div><\/li>19\/09\/2016 - CLLS Response - Looking to the Future - SRA Accounts Rules Review - 19 09 16<\/a><\/h2>\r\n<\/p>
<\/a><\/div><\/li>14\/09\/2016 - Response to SRA Handbook Review: Looking to the future - flexibility and public protection<\/a><\/h2>\r\n<\/p>
<\/a><\/div><\/li>24\/03\/2016 - Response to the SRA Consultation on The Insurance Act 2015 and Consequential Changes to the Minimum Terms and Conditions of Professional Indemnity Insurance<\/a><\/h2>\r\n<\/p>
<\/a><\/div><\/li>10\/03\/2016 - Minutes of the Meeting of the CLLS Professional Rules & Regulation Committee Thursday 10th March 2016<\/a><\/h2>\r\n<\/p>
<\/a><\/div><\/li>17\/09\/2015 - CLLS Consultation Response - Professional Rules and Regulation Committee -Protecting Clients Financial Interests - 14 09 15<\/a><\/h2>\r\n<\/p>
<\/a><\/div><\/li>16\/07\/2015 - Response to the Law Society\u2019s discussion paper on the Legal Ombudsman\u2019s (LeO) case fee and funding<\/a><\/h2>\r\n<\/p>
<\/a><\/div><\/li>10\/06\/2015 - Response to the Consultation on the SRA Regulatory Reform Programme<\/a><\/h2>\r\n<\/p>
<\/a><\/div><\/li>18\/02\/2015 - Response to LSB Strategic Plan 2015-18 and Busines Plan 2015-16<\/a><\/h2>\r\n<\/p>
<\/a><\/div><\/li>11\/02\/2015 - Response to the SRA Separate Business Rule Consultation<\/a><\/h2>\r\n<\/p>
<\/a><\/div><\/li>28\/01\/2015 - Response to SRA Consultation on Proportionate Regulation: reporting accountant requirements<\/a><\/h2>\r\n<\/p>
<\/a><\/div><\/li>17\/12\/2014 - Response to Consultation on SRA's Regulation of Consumer Credit Activities<\/a><\/h2>\r\n<\/p>
<\/a><\/div><\/li>16\/12\/2014 - Response to the SRA's Consultation on Overseas Accounts Rules<\/a><\/h2>\r\n<\/p>
<\/a><\/div><\/li>03\/07\/2014 - Response to further SRA consultation on proposed changes to the registered European lawyer regime<\/a><\/h2>\r\nThe Committee responded to the SRA\u2019s further consultation on its proposed amendments to the Handbook. The response commented specifically on the proposal to apply the conduct provisions to solicitors within foreign firms in the same way as it was proposed they would apply to RELs within an EEP.\r\n\r\n<\/p>
<\/a><\/div><\/li>03\/07\/2014 - Response to SRA Consultation Paper on Multi-Disciplinary Practices<\/a><\/h2>\r\nThe consultation sought views on policy changes and associated amendments to the SRA Handbook which were aimed at achieving a proportionate regulatory framework for the authorisation and supervision of multi-disciplinary alternative business structures providing legal and non\u2013legal services. One driver behind the consultation was the SRA\u2019s concern that some of the rules in the SRA Handbook may have become an impediment to the effective licensing and regulation of some licensed bodies; and in particular, those rules that require all legal activity within an SRA authorised MDP to be SRA regulated. The CLLS response argued that if non-Reserved activity is not regulated when it is carried out by a non-Authorised person, then it need not be regulated when it is carried out by a better-qualified Authorised Person. The CLLS argued that this regulatory asymmetry means that solicitors, as Authorised Persons, are commercially disadvantaged in comparison with non-Authorised Persons, when doing the same tasks. The CLLS response raised some further concerns, (including the fact that the SRA\u2019s regulatory proposals in this area do not appear to be based on a comprehensive risk analysis of the field), and responded to the specific consultation questions. <\/p>
<\/a><\/div><\/li>23\/06\/2014 - Response to SRA consultation: Proportionate regulation - changes to minimum compulsory professional indemnity cover<\/a><\/h2>\r\nThis consultation paper contained proposals which the SRA stated were aimed at reducing the regulatory burden, providing targeted regulation and increasing competition. The proposals form part of a wider SRA review of the scope of cover under the Minimum Terms and Conditions. The CLLS submission in response supported in principle the idea of reducing the insurance costs burden in a manner which would allow firms to consider the appropriate level of cover they need (subject to a mandatory minimum). However, it expressed the view that the SRA needs to have consulted with the insurers before making specific proposals. It went on to state that the consultation paper had adduced no evidence that the proposals would in fact attract the costs reductions they are aiming for, and that a reduction in the minimum insurance requirement may well have no effect on the premiums charged by insurance companies. It stressed the need for the proposals to be evidence-based, and strongly recommended that any reform be delayed until the 2015 renewal.<\/p>
<\/a><\/div><\/li>20\/06\/2014 - Response to SRA consultation: Compensation Arrangements Review - the introduction of an eligibility criteria<\/a><\/h2>\r\nThe consultation invited views on the SRA\u2019s arrangements for compensating clients who suffer financial loss due to dishonesty, failure to account or civil liability of uninsured practitioners. The CLLS submission responded to the specific consultation questions. The submission also expressed, more generally, a concern that the SRA was consulting on an important topic that may have significant implications, in particular for consumers who do suffer losses, without explaining (i) clearly what has driven the proposal or (ii) providing supporting evidence, that only the SRA can provide, about the impact of the proposal.<\/p>
<\/a><\/div><\/li>19\/06\/2014 - Response to SRA consultation on Proportionate regulation: changes to reporting accounting requirements<\/a><\/h2>\r\nThis consultation paper contained two proposals: removal of the mandatory requirement that firms must submit an annual accountant's report to the SRA, and requiring COFAs to sign a declaration that they are satisfied that their respective firms are managing their client accounts in accordance with the SRA Account Rules. The proposals form part of an SRA programme to reform its regulatory regime \u201cto reduce unnecessary burdens and provide flexibility of approach to deliver good financial management\u201d. The submission responded to the specific consultation questions, and argued more generally that the consultation was premature, and that no changes should be made to the current reporting accountant regime until such time as the general review of the SRA accounts rules had been completed. <\/p>
<\/a><\/div><\/li>02\/06\/2014 - Response to SRA consultation \u201cAnnual keeping of the roll exercise\u201d<\/a><\/h2>\r\nThe consultation sought views on proposals to remove \u201cthe unnecessary and over burdensome process which requires solicitors who do not hold practising certificates to complete a yearly online application and pay a fee if they wish their name to remain on the roll of solicitors\u201d. The Submission broadly agreed with the consultation proposal to stop the annual updating process while keeping the power for the SRA to carry out updates when it thinks these are needed. It also broadly agreed with the proposal\u2019s expressed purpose, being \u2018to remove the unnecessary and burdensome process\u2019 involved with solicitors who do not have Practising Certificates (\u2018PCs\u2019) having to renew their roll applications annually. However, the Submission also raised concerns about the failure of the Consultation Paper to address the impact of remaining on the roll in any detail, including in relation to the status of undertakings given by non-practising solicitors who remain on the roll. It also raised concerns about some of the consequences that might arise were the annual updating process to be dispensed with. <\/p>
<\/a><\/div><\/li>02\/06\/2014 - Response to SRA consultation \u201cRed Tape Initiative: Residual client balances\u201d<\/a><\/h2>\r\nThe consultation sought views on proposals to amend the SRA Account Rules 2011 relating to how practitioners deal with client money they are unable to return to clients at the end of a matter (residual client balances), including the processes surrounding the withdrawal of such funds and the basis for distribution to charities. The Submission in response noted that the CLLS supports a proposal to increase the level at which practitioners can self-certify transfers of residual client balances, although it noted that there are differing views within the CLLS about the level at which SRA authorisation should be required. The submission also expressed concern that a significant increase in the self-certification level should be balanced by appropriate but proportional checks and balances. Furthermore, it agreed with the SRA\u2019s view that it ought not to restrict the charities to which residual balances should be transferred. <\/p>
<\/a><\/div><\/li>15\/04\/2014 - Proposed Changes in the Registered European Lawyer Regime<\/a><\/h2>\r\n<\/p>
<\/a><\/div><\/li>11\/02\/2014 - Response to LSB consultation on its draft 2014\/15 Business Plan<\/a><\/h2>\r\nThe response highlighted the amount that the City firms pay annually towards the regulatory and \u2018permitted purposes\u2019 costs of the legal sector, and expressed concern about the absence of the item \u201cMapping the Unregulated Market\u201d from the LSB\u2019s planned research programme. The response called on the LSB to answer a question that it had posed in an earlier consultation (\u201cEnhancing consumer protection, reducing regulatory restrictions\u201d) namely \u201cthere is a question about the relative balance of regulatory focus. Is the current balance of regulation right or are there areas where deregulation may be appropriate?\u2019\u201c\r\n\r\n\r\n<\/p>
<\/a><\/div><\/li>11\/02\/2014 - Response to SRA consultation: Proposal to increase the SRA's internal fining powers<\/a><\/h2>\r\nThe consultation paper invited views on the SRA\u2019s proposal to increase the current level of its fining powers for \u2018traditional\u2019 firms (i.e. non-ABS firms) from the current level of \u00a32,000, and to enable the SRA to agree (rather than impose) fines of a more significant amount with the regulated person concerned under its existing policy of agreeing the outcome of an investigation under its Regulatory Settlements Agreements policy. The response commented in detail on the consultation proposals, and questioned the consultation paper\u2019s presumption that the disciplinary regime that currently applies to ABS firms should be extended to all regulated firms. <\/p>
<\/a><\/div><\/li>26\/11\/2013 - Response to LSB consultation on Chairs of regulatory bodies: Consultation on an amendment to the Internal Governance Rules to require that the Chairs of the Boards of the regulatory arms of each applicable approved regulator be a lay person.<\/a><\/h2>\r\nThe consultation paper focussed on a proposed amendment to the Internal Governance Rules to require that the Chairs of the Boards of the regulatory arms of each \u201capplicable approved regulator\u201d be a lay person. In its response, the Committee raised a number of points, including that it saw \u201clittle merit in a rule change which necessarily narrows the field of candidates for the role of Chair of these bodies, where no evidence is given to show that the presence of a non-lay Chair has meaningfully impeded the independence of the regulator\u201d.<\/p>
<\/a><\/div><\/li>09\/09\/2013 - Review of the Legal Services Regulatory Framework: CLLS Submission to the Ministry of Justice<\/a><\/h2>\r\nReview of the Legal Services Regulatory Framework: CLLS Submission to the Ministry of Justice.<\/p>
<\/a><\/div><\/li>13\/08\/2013 - Response to Committee on Standards in Public Life Consultation on Lobbying Issues and Questions<\/a><\/h2>\r\n<\/p>
<\/a><\/div><\/li>24\/07\/2013 - Minutes of Meeting held in June 2013<\/a><\/h2>\r\nMinutes of Meeting held in June 2013<\/p>
<\/a><\/div><\/li>08\/07\/2013 - Response to SRA Consultation on New Overseas Rules<\/a><\/h2>\r\nResponse to SRA Consultation on New Overseas Rules<\/p>
<\/a><\/div><\/li>07\/07\/2013 - Response to SRA Consultation on New Overseas Rules \u2013 Comments on Annexes<\/a><\/h2>\r\nResponse to SRA Consultation on New Overseas Rules \u2013 Comments on Annexes<\/p>
<\/a><\/div><\/li>04\/07\/2013 - Response to SRA consultation Red Tape Initiative Phase 2: Removing unnecessary regulations and simplifying processes<\/a><\/h2>\r\nResponse to SRA consultation Red Tape Initiative Phase 2: Removing unnecessary regulations and simplifying processes<\/p>
<\/a><\/div><\/li>19\/04\/2013 - Response to SRA consultation: Indicative guidance on financial penalties<\/a><\/h2>\r\nResponse to SRA consultation: Indicative guidance on financial penalties<\/p>
<\/a><\/div><\/li>25\/03\/2013 - Response to SRA Consultation on Handbook Amendments Relating to International<\/a><\/h2>\r\nResponse to SRA Consultation on Handbook Amendments Relating to International Practice <\/p>
<\/a><\/div><\/li>12\/03\/2013 - Response to the LSB Consultation on its Draft Business Plan 2013<\/a><\/h2>\r\nResponse to the LSB Consultation on its Draft Business Plan 2013<\/p>
<\/a><\/div><\/li>11\/03\/2013 - Minutes of Meeting held in February 2013<\/a><\/h2>\r\nMinutes of Meeting held in February 2013<\/p>
<\/a><\/div><\/li>22\/01\/2013 - Response to SRA Consultation on Co-operation Agreements<\/a><\/h2>\r\nResponse to SRA Consultation on Co-operation Agreements<\/p>
<\/a><\/div><\/li>15\/08\/2012 - Response to SRA consultation on The Future of Authorised Professional Firms<\/a><\/h2>\r\nResponse to SRA consultation on The Future of Authorised Professional Firms<\/p>
<\/a><\/div><\/li>12\/04\/2012 - Response to HMG Consultation on Introducing a Statutory Register of Lobbyists<\/a><\/h2>\r\nResponse to HMG Consultation on Introducing a Statutory Register of Lobbyists<\/p>
<\/a><\/div><\/li>14\/02\/2012 - Response to the SRA's<\/a><\/h2>\r\nResponse to the SRA's \"Regulation of International Practice\" Consultation<\/p>
<\/a><\/div><\/li>17\/01\/2012 - Response to SRA consultation \u201cSRA financial protection review\u201d<\/a><\/h2>\r\nResponse to SRA consultation \u201cSRA financial protection review\u201d<\/p>
<\/a><\/div><\/li>17\/01\/2012 - Minutes of the Meeting held in December 2011<\/a><\/h2>\r\nMinutes of the Meeting held in December 2011<\/p>
<\/a><\/div><\/li>26\/10\/2011 - Minutes from Meeting held in June 2011<\/a><\/h2>\r\nMinutes from Meeting held in June 2011<\/p>
<\/a><\/div><\/li>11\/07\/2011 - Response to SRA Consultation<\/a><\/h2>\r\nResponse to SRA Consultation \"Alternative Business Structures Fee Structure\"<\/p>
<\/a><\/div><\/li>26\/04\/2011 - Response to SRA Consultation<\/a><\/h2>\r\nResponse to SRA Consultation \"Future Client Financial Protection Arrangements\" <\/p>
<\/a><\/div><\/li>28\/02\/2011 - CLLS Response to the SRA Architecture of Change Part 2 Consultation<\/a><\/h2>\r\nCLLS Response to the SRA Architecture of Change Part 2 Consultation<\/p>
<\/a><\/div><\/li>27\/09\/2018 - CLLS PRRC response to the SRA on Reporting Concerns Consultation<\/a><\/h2>\r\nThe response by the CLLS Professional Rules and Regulation Committee to the SRA Reporting Concerns Consultation.<\/p>
<\/a><\/div><\/li>15\/06\/2018 - Protecting the Users of Legal Services - SRA Consultation<\/a><\/h2>\r\n<\/p>
<\/a><\/div><\/li>20\/12\/2017 - Looking to the Future Phase II Handbook Reforms<\/a><\/h2>\r\n<\/p>
<\/a><\/div><\/li>20\/12\/2017 - \u201cLooking to the future: better information, more choice\u201d<\/a><\/h2>\r\nResponse of the CLLS Professional Rules and Regulation Committee to the SRA Consultation \u201cLooking to the future: better information, more choice\u201d<\/p>
<\/a><\/div><\/li>19\/09\/2016 - CLLS Response - Looking to the Future - SRA Accounts Rules Review - 19 09 16<\/a><\/h2>\r\n<\/p>
<\/a><\/div><\/li>14\/09\/2016 - Response to SRA Handbook Review: Looking to the future - flexibility and public protection<\/a><\/h2>\r\n<\/p>
<\/a><\/div><\/li>24\/03\/2016 - Response to the SRA Consultation on The Insurance Act 2015 and Consequential Changes to the Minimum Terms and Conditions of Professional Indemnity Insurance<\/a><\/h2>\r\n<\/p>
<\/a><\/div><\/li>10\/03\/2016 - Minutes of the Meeting of the CLLS Professional Rules & Regulation Committee Thursday 10th March 2016<\/a><\/h2>\r\n<\/p>
<\/a><\/div><\/li>17\/09\/2015 - CLLS Consultation Response - Professional Rules and Regulation Committee -Protecting Clients Financial Interests - 14 09 15<\/a><\/h2>\r\n<\/p>
<\/a><\/div><\/li>16\/07\/2015 - Response to the Law Society\u2019s discussion paper on the Legal Ombudsman\u2019s (LeO) case fee and funding<\/a><\/h2>\r\n<\/p>
<\/a><\/div><\/li>10\/06\/2015 - Response to the Consultation on the SRA Regulatory Reform Programme<\/a><\/h2>\r\n<\/p>
<\/a><\/div><\/li>18\/02\/2015 - Response to LSB Strategic Plan 2015-18 and Busines Plan 2015-16<\/a><\/h2>\r\n<\/p>
<\/a><\/div><\/li>11\/02\/2015 - Response to the SRA Separate Business Rule Consultation<\/a><\/h2>\r\n<\/p>
<\/a><\/div><\/li>28\/01\/2015 - Response to SRA Consultation on Proportionate Regulation: reporting accountant requirements<\/a><\/h2>\r\n<\/p>
<\/a><\/div><\/li>17\/12\/2014 - Response to Consultation on SRA's Regulation of Consumer Credit Activities<\/a><\/h2>\r\n<\/p>
<\/a><\/div><\/li>16\/12\/2014 - Response to the SRA's Consultation on Overseas Accounts Rules<\/a><\/h2>\r\n<\/p>
<\/a><\/div><\/li>03\/07\/2014 - Response to further SRA consultation on proposed changes to the registered European lawyer regime<\/a><\/h2>\r\nThe Committee responded to the SRA\u2019s further consultation on its proposed amendments to the Handbook. The response commented specifically on the proposal to apply the conduct provisions to solicitors within foreign firms in the same way as it was proposed they would apply to RELs within an EEP.\r\n\r\n<\/p>
<\/a><\/div><\/li>03\/07\/2014 - Response to SRA Consultation Paper on Multi-Disciplinary Practices<\/a><\/h2>\r\nThe consultation sought views on policy changes and associated amendments to the SRA Handbook which were aimed at achieving a proportionate regulatory framework for the authorisation and supervision of multi-disciplinary alternative business structures providing legal and non\u2013legal services. One driver behind the consultation was the SRA\u2019s concern that some of the rules in the SRA Handbook may have become an impediment to the effective licensing and regulation of some licensed bodies; and in particular, those rules that require all legal activity within an SRA authorised MDP to be SRA regulated. The CLLS response argued that if non-Reserved activity is not regulated when it is carried out by a non-Authorised person, then it need not be regulated when it is carried out by a better-qualified Authorised Person. The CLLS argued that this regulatory asymmetry means that solicitors, as Authorised Persons, are commercially disadvantaged in comparison with non-Authorised Persons, when doing the same tasks. The CLLS response raised some further concerns, (including the fact that the SRA\u2019s regulatory proposals in this area do not appear to be based on a comprehensive risk analysis of the field), and responded to the specific consultation questions. <\/p>
<\/a><\/div><\/li>23\/06\/2014 - Response to SRA consultation: Proportionate regulation - changes to minimum compulsory professional indemnity cover<\/a><\/h2>\r\nThis consultation paper contained proposals which the SRA stated were aimed at reducing the regulatory burden, providing targeted regulation and increasing competition. The proposals form part of a wider SRA review of the scope of cover under the Minimum Terms and Conditions. The CLLS submission in response supported in principle the idea of reducing the insurance costs burden in a manner which would allow firms to consider the appropriate level of cover they need (subject to a mandatory minimum). However, it expressed the view that the SRA needs to have consulted with the insurers before making specific proposals. It went on to state that the consultation paper had adduced no evidence that the proposals would in fact attract the costs reductions they are aiming for, and that a reduction in the minimum insurance requirement may well have no effect on the premiums charged by insurance companies. It stressed the need for the proposals to be evidence-based, and strongly recommended that any reform be delayed until the 2015 renewal.<\/p>
<\/a><\/div><\/li>20\/06\/2014 - Response to SRA consultation: Compensation Arrangements Review - the introduction of an eligibility criteria<\/a><\/h2>\r\nThe consultation invited views on the SRA\u2019s arrangements for compensating clients who suffer financial loss due to dishonesty, failure to account or civil liability of uninsured practitioners. The CLLS submission responded to the specific consultation questions. The submission also expressed, more generally, a concern that the SRA was consulting on an important topic that may have significant implications, in particular for consumers who do suffer losses, without explaining (i) clearly what has driven the proposal or (ii) providing supporting evidence, that only the SRA can provide, about the impact of the proposal.<\/p>
<\/a><\/div><\/li>19\/06\/2014 - Response to SRA consultation on Proportionate regulation: changes to reporting accounting requirements<\/a><\/h2>\r\nThis consultation paper contained two proposals: removal of the mandatory requirement that firms must submit an annual accountant's report to the SRA, and requiring COFAs to sign a declaration that they are satisfied that their respective firms are managing their client accounts in accordance with the SRA Account Rules. The proposals form part of an SRA programme to reform its regulatory regime \u201cto reduce unnecessary burdens and provide flexibility of approach to deliver good financial management\u201d. The submission responded to the specific consultation questions, and argued more generally that the consultation was premature, and that no changes should be made to the current reporting accountant regime until such time as the general review of the SRA accounts rules had been completed. <\/p>
<\/a><\/div><\/li>02\/06\/2014 - Response to SRA consultation \u201cAnnual keeping of the roll exercise\u201d<\/a><\/h2>\r\nThe consultation sought views on proposals to remove \u201cthe unnecessary and over burdensome process which requires solicitors who do not hold practising certificates to complete a yearly online application and pay a fee if they wish their name to remain on the roll of solicitors\u201d. The Submission broadly agreed with the consultation proposal to stop the annual updating process while keeping the power for the SRA to carry out updates when it thinks these are needed. It also broadly agreed with the proposal\u2019s expressed purpose, being \u2018to remove the unnecessary and burdensome process\u2019 involved with solicitors who do not have Practising Certificates (\u2018PCs\u2019) having to renew their roll applications annually. However, the Submission also raised concerns about the failure of the Consultation Paper to address the impact of remaining on the roll in any detail, including in relation to the status of undertakings given by non-practising solicitors who remain on the roll. It also raised concerns about some of the consequences that might arise were the annual updating process to be dispensed with. <\/p>
<\/a><\/div><\/li>02\/06\/2014 - Response to SRA consultation \u201cRed Tape Initiative: Residual client balances\u201d<\/a><\/h2>\r\nThe consultation sought views on proposals to amend the SRA Account Rules 2011 relating to how practitioners deal with client money they are unable to return to clients at the end of a matter (residual client balances), including the processes surrounding the withdrawal of such funds and the basis for distribution to charities. The Submission in response noted that the CLLS supports a proposal to increase the level at which practitioners can self-certify transfers of residual client balances, although it noted that there are differing views within the CLLS about the level at which SRA authorisation should be required. The submission also expressed concern that a significant increase in the self-certification level should be balanced by appropriate but proportional checks and balances. Furthermore, it agreed with the SRA\u2019s view that it ought not to restrict the charities to which residual balances should be transferred. <\/p>
<\/a><\/div><\/li>15\/04\/2014 - Proposed Changes in the Registered European Lawyer Regime<\/a><\/h2>\r\n<\/p>
<\/a><\/div><\/li>11\/02\/2014 - Response to LSB consultation on its draft 2014\/15 Business Plan<\/a><\/h2>\r\nThe response highlighted the amount that the City firms pay annually towards the regulatory and \u2018permitted purposes\u2019 costs of the legal sector, and expressed concern about the absence of the item \u201cMapping the Unregulated Market\u201d from the LSB\u2019s planned research programme. The response called on the LSB to answer a question that it had posed in an earlier consultation (\u201cEnhancing consumer protection, reducing regulatory restrictions\u201d) namely \u201cthere is a question about the relative balance of regulatory focus. Is the current balance of regulation right or are there areas where deregulation may be appropriate?\u2019\u201c\r\n\r\n\r\n<\/p>
<\/a><\/div><\/li>11\/02\/2014 - Response to SRA consultation: Proposal to increase the SRA's internal fining powers<\/a><\/h2>\r\nThe consultation paper invited views on the SRA\u2019s proposal to increase the current level of its fining powers for \u2018traditional\u2019 firms (i.e. non-ABS firms) from the current level of \u00a32,000, and to enable the SRA to agree (rather than impose) fines of a more significant amount with the regulated person concerned under its existing policy of agreeing the outcome of an investigation under its Regulatory Settlements Agreements policy. The response commented in detail on the consultation proposals, and questioned the consultation paper\u2019s presumption that the disciplinary regime that currently applies to ABS firms should be extended to all regulated firms. <\/p>
<\/a><\/div><\/li>26\/11\/2013 - Response to LSB consultation on Chairs of regulatory bodies: Consultation on an amendment to the Internal Governance Rules to require that the Chairs of the Boards of the regulatory arms of each applicable approved regulator be a lay person.<\/a><\/h2>\r\nThe consultation paper focussed on a proposed amendment to the Internal Governance Rules to require that the Chairs of the Boards of the regulatory arms of each \u201capplicable approved regulator\u201d be a lay person. In its response, the Committee raised a number of points, including that it saw \u201clittle merit in a rule change which necessarily narrows the field of candidates for the role of Chair of these bodies, where no evidence is given to show that the presence of a non-lay Chair has meaningfully impeded the independence of the regulator\u201d.<\/p>
<\/a><\/div><\/li>09\/09\/2013 - Review of the Legal Services Regulatory Framework: CLLS Submission to the Ministry of Justice<\/a><\/h2>\r\nReview of the Legal Services Regulatory Framework: CLLS Submission to the Ministry of Justice.<\/p>
<\/a><\/div><\/li>13\/08\/2013 - Response to Committee on Standards in Public Life Consultation on Lobbying Issues and Questions<\/a><\/h2>\r\n<\/p>
<\/a><\/div><\/li>24\/07\/2013 - Minutes of Meeting held in June 2013<\/a><\/h2>\r\nMinutes of Meeting held in June 2013<\/p>
<\/a><\/div><\/li>08\/07\/2013 - Response to SRA Consultation on New Overseas Rules<\/a><\/h2>\r\nResponse to SRA Consultation on New Overseas Rules<\/p>
<\/a><\/div><\/li>07\/07\/2013 - Response to SRA Consultation on New Overseas Rules \u2013 Comments on Annexes<\/a><\/h2>\r\nResponse to SRA Consultation on New Overseas Rules \u2013 Comments on Annexes<\/p>
<\/a><\/div><\/li>04\/07\/2013 - Response to SRA consultation Red Tape Initiative Phase 2: Removing unnecessary regulations and simplifying processes<\/a><\/h2>\r\nResponse to SRA consultation Red Tape Initiative Phase 2: Removing unnecessary regulations and simplifying processes<\/p>
<\/a><\/div><\/li>19\/04\/2013 - Response to SRA consultation: Indicative guidance on financial penalties<\/a><\/h2>\r\nResponse to SRA consultation: Indicative guidance on financial penalties<\/p>
<\/a><\/div><\/li>25\/03\/2013 - Response to SRA Consultation on Handbook Amendments Relating to International<\/a><\/h2>\r\nResponse to SRA Consultation on Handbook Amendments Relating to International Practice <\/p>
<\/a><\/div><\/li>12\/03\/2013 - Response to the LSB Consultation on its Draft Business Plan 2013<\/a><\/h2>\r\nResponse to the LSB Consultation on its Draft Business Plan 2013<\/p>
<\/a><\/div><\/li>11\/03\/2013 - Minutes of Meeting held in February 2013<\/a><\/h2>\r\nMinutes of Meeting held in February 2013<\/p>
<\/a><\/div><\/li>22\/01\/2013 - Response to SRA Consultation on Co-operation Agreements<\/a><\/h2>\r\nResponse to SRA Consultation on Co-operation Agreements<\/p>
<\/a><\/div><\/li>15\/08\/2012 - Response to SRA consultation on The Future of Authorised Professional Firms<\/a><\/h2>\r\nResponse to SRA consultation on The Future of Authorised Professional Firms<\/p>
<\/a><\/div><\/li>12\/04\/2012 - Response to HMG Consultation on Introducing a Statutory Register of Lobbyists<\/a><\/h2>\r\nResponse to HMG Consultation on Introducing a Statutory Register of Lobbyists<\/p>
<\/a><\/div><\/li>14\/02\/2012 - Response to the SRA's<\/a><\/h2>\r\nResponse to the SRA's \"Regulation of International Practice\" Consultation<\/p>
<\/a><\/div><\/li>17\/01\/2012 - Response to SRA consultation \u201cSRA financial protection review\u201d<\/a><\/h2>\r\nResponse to SRA consultation \u201cSRA financial protection review\u201d<\/p>
<\/a><\/div><\/li>17\/01\/2012 - Minutes of the Meeting held in December 2011<\/a><\/h2>\r\nMinutes of the Meeting held in December 2011<\/p>
<\/a><\/div><\/li>26\/10\/2011 - Minutes from Meeting held in June 2011<\/a><\/h2>\r\nMinutes from Meeting held in June 2011<\/p>
<\/a><\/div><\/li>11\/07\/2011 - Response to SRA Consultation<\/a><\/h2>\r\nResponse to SRA Consultation \"Alternative Business Structures Fee Structure\"<\/p>
<\/a><\/div><\/li>26\/04\/2011 - Response to SRA Consultation<\/a><\/h2>\r\nResponse to SRA Consultation \"Future Client Financial Protection Arrangements\" <\/p>
<\/a><\/div><\/li>28\/02\/2011 - CLLS Response to the SRA Architecture of Change Part 2 Consultation<\/a><\/h2>\r\nCLLS Response to the SRA Architecture of Change Part 2 Consultation<\/p>
<\/a><\/div><\/li>15\/06\/2018 - Protecting the Users of Legal Services - SRA Consultation<\/a><\/h2>\r\n<\/p>
<\/a><\/div><\/li>20\/12\/2017 - Looking to the Future Phase II Handbook Reforms<\/a><\/h2>\r\n<\/p>
<\/a><\/div><\/li>20\/12\/2017 - \u201cLooking to the future: better information, more choice\u201d<\/a><\/h2>\r\nResponse of the CLLS Professional Rules and Regulation Committee to the SRA Consultation \u201cLooking to the future: better information, more choice\u201d<\/p>
<\/a><\/div><\/li>19\/09\/2016 - CLLS Response - Looking to the Future - SRA Accounts Rules Review - 19 09 16<\/a><\/h2>\r\n<\/p>
<\/a><\/div><\/li>14\/09\/2016 - Response to SRA Handbook Review: Looking to the future - flexibility and public protection<\/a><\/h2>\r\n<\/p>
<\/a><\/div><\/li>24\/03\/2016 - Response to the SRA Consultation on The Insurance Act 2015 and Consequential Changes to the Minimum Terms and Conditions of Professional Indemnity Insurance<\/a><\/h2>\r\n<\/p>
<\/a><\/div><\/li>10\/03\/2016 - Minutes of the Meeting of the CLLS Professional Rules & Regulation Committee Thursday 10th March 2016<\/a><\/h2>\r\n<\/p>
<\/a><\/div><\/li>17\/09\/2015 - CLLS Consultation Response - Professional Rules and Regulation Committee -Protecting Clients Financial Interests - 14 09 15<\/a><\/h2>\r\n<\/p>
<\/a><\/div><\/li>16\/07\/2015 - Response to the Law Society\u2019s discussion paper on the Legal Ombudsman\u2019s (LeO) case fee and funding<\/a><\/h2>\r\n<\/p>
<\/a><\/div><\/li>10\/06\/2015 - Response to the Consultation on the SRA Regulatory Reform Programme<\/a><\/h2>\r\n<\/p>
<\/a><\/div><\/li>18\/02\/2015 - Response to LSB Strategic Plan 2015-18 and Busines Plan 2015-16<\/a><\/h2>\r\n<\/p>
<\/a><\/div><\/li>11\/02\/2015 - Response to the SRA Separate Business Rule Consultation<\/a><\/h2>\r\n<\/p>
<\/a><\/div><\/li>28\/01\/2015 - Response to SRA Consultation on Proportionate Regulation: reporting accountant requirements<\/a><\/h2>\r\n<\/p>
<\/a><\/div><\/li>17\/12\/2014 - Response to Consultation on SRA's Regulation of Consumer Credit Activities<\/a><\/h2>\r\n<\/p>
<\/a><\/div><\/li>16\/12\/2014 - Response to the SRA's Consultation on Overseas Accounts Rules<\/a><\/h2>\r\n<\/p>
<\/a><\/div><\/li>03\/07\/2014 - Response to further SRA consultation on proposed changes to the registered European lawyer regime<\/a><\/h2>\r\nThe Committee responded to the SRA\u2019s further consultation on its proposed amendments to the Handbook. The response commented specifically on the proposal to apply the conduct provisions to solicitors within foreign firms in the same way as it was proposed they would apply to RELs within an EEP.\r\n\r\n<\/p>
<\/a><\/div><\/li>03\/07\/2014 - Response to SRA Consultation Paper on Multi-Disciplinary Practices<\/a><\/h2>\r\nThe consultation sought views on policy changes and associated amendments to the SRA Handbook which were aimed at achieving a proportionate regulatory framework for the authorisation and supervision of multi-disciplinary alternative business structures providing legal and non\u2013legal services. One driver behind the consultation was the SRA\u2019s concern that some of the rules in the SRA Handbook may have become an impediment to the effective licensing and regulation of some licensed bodies; and in particular, those rules that require all legal activity within an SRA authorised MDP to be SRA regulated. The CLLS response argued that if non-Reserved activity is not regulated when it is carried out by a non-Authorised person, then it need not be regulated when it is carried out by a better-qualified Authorised Person. The CLLS argued that this regulatory asymmetry means that solicitors, as Authorised Persons, are commercially disadvantaged in comparison with non-Authorised Persons, when doing the same tasks. The CLLS response raised some further concerns, (including the fact that the SRA\u2019s regulatory proposals in this area do not appear to be based on a comprehensive risk analysis of the field), and responded to the specific consultation questions. <\/p>
<\/a><\/div><\/li>23\/06\/2014 - Response to SRA consultation: Proportionate regulation - changes to minimum compulsory professional indemnity cover<\/a><\/h2>\r\nThis consultation paper contained proposals which the SRA stated were aimed at reducing the regulatory burden, providing targeted regulation and increasing competition. The proposals form part of a wider SRA review of the scope of cover under the Minimum Terms and Conditions. The CLLS submission in response supported in principle the idea of reducing the insurance costs burden in a manner which would allow firms to consider the appropriate level of cover they need (subject to a mandatory minimum). However, it expressed the view that the SRA needs to have consulted with the insurers before making specific proposals. It went on to state that the consultation paper had adduced no evidence that the proposals would in fact attract the costs reductions they are aiming for, and that a reduction in the minimum insurance requirement may well have no effect on the premiums charged by insurance companies. It stressed the need for the proposals to be evidence-based, and strongly recommended that any reform be delayed until the 2015 renewal.<\/p>
<\/a><\/div><\/li>20\/06\/2014 - Response to SRA consultation: Compensation Arrangements Review - the introduction of an eligibility criteria<\/a><\/h2>\r\nThe consultation invited views on the SRA\u2019s arrangements for compensating clients who suffer financial loss due to dishonesty, failure to account or civil liability of uninsured practitioners. The CLLS submission responded to the specific consultation questions. The submission also expressed, more generally, a concern that the SRA was consulting on an important topic that may have significant implications, in particular for consumers who do suffer losses, without explaining (i) clearly what has driven the proposal or (ii) providing supporting evidence, that only the SRA can provide, about the impact of the proposal.<\/p>
<\/a><\/div><\/li>19\/06\/2014 - Response to SRA consultation on Proportionate regulation: changes to reporting accounting requirements<\/a><\/h2>\r\nThis consultation paper contained two proposals: removal of the mandatory requirement that firms must submit an annual accountant's report to the SRA, and requiring COFAs to sign a declaration that they are satisfied that their respective firms are managing their client accounts in accordance with the SRA Account Rules. The proposals form part of an SRA programme to reform its regulatory regime \u201cto reduce unnecessary burdens and provide flexibility of approach to deliver good financial management\u201d. The submission responded to the specific consultation questions, and argued more generally that the consultation was premature, and that no changes should be made to the current reporting accountant regime until such time as the general review of the SRA accounts rules had been completed. <\/p>
<\/a><\/div><\/li>02\/06\/2014 - Response to SRA consultation \u201cAnnual keeping of the roll exercise\u201d<\/a><\/h2>\r\nThe consultation sought views on proposals to remove \u201cthe unnecessary and over burdensome process which requires solicitors who do not hold practising certificates to complete a yearly online application and pay a fee if they wish their name to remain on the roll of solicitors\u201d. The Submission broadly agreed with the consultation proposal to stop the annual updating process while keeping the power for the SRA to carry out updates when it thinks these are needed. It also broadly agreed with the proposal\u2019s expressed purpose, being \u2018to remove the unnecessary and burdensome process\u2019 involved with solicitors who do not have Practising Certificates (\u2018PCs\u2019) having to renew their roll applications annually. However, the Submission also raised concerns about the failure of the Consultation Paper to address the impact of remaining on the roll in any detail, including in relation to the status of undertakings given by non-practising solicitors who remain on the roll. It also raised concerns about some of the consequences that might arise were the annual updating process to be dispensed with. <\/p>
<\/a><\/div><\/li>02\/06\/2014 - Response to SRA consultation \u201cRed Tape Initiative: Residual client balances\u201d<\/a><\/h2>\r\nThe consultation sought views on proposals to amend the SRA Account Rules 2011 relating to how practitioners deal with client money they are unable to return to clients at the end of a matter (residual client balances), including the processes surrounding the withdrawal of such funds and the basis for distribution to charities. The Submission in response noted that the CLLS supports a proposal to increase the level at which practitioners can self-certify transfers of residual client balances, although it noted that there are differing views within the CLLS about the level at which SRA authorisation should be required. The submission also expressed concern that a significant increase in the self-certification level should be balanced by appropriate but proportional checks and balances. Furthermore, it agreed with the SRA\u2019s view that it ought not to restrict the charities to which residual balances should be transferred. <\/p>
<\/a><\/div><\/li>15\/04\/2014 - Proposed Changes in the Registered European Lawyer Regime<\/a><\/h2>\r\n<\/p>
<\/a><\/div><\/li>11\/02\/2014 - Response to LSB consultation on its draft 2014\/15 Business Plan<\/a><\/h2>\r\nThe response highlighted the amount that the City firms pay annually towards the regulatory and \u2018permitted purposes\u2019 costs of the legal sector, and expressed concern about the absence of the item \u201cMapping the Unregulated Market\u201d from the LSB\u2019s planned research programme. The response called on the LSB to answer a question that it had posed in an earlier consultation (\u201cEnhancing consumer protection, reducing regulatory restrictions\u201d) namely \u201cthere is a question about the relative balance of regulatory focus. Is the current balance of regulation right or are there areas where deregulation may be appropriate?\u2019\u201c\r\n\r\n\r\n<\/p>
<\/a><\/div><\/li>11\/02\/2014 - Response to SRA consultation: Proposal to increase the SRA's internal fining powers<\/a><\/h2>\r\nThe consultation paper invited views on the SRA\u2019s proposal to increase the current level of its fining powers for \u2018traditional\u2019 firms (i.e. non-ABS firms) from the current level of \u00a32,000, and to enable the SRA to agree (rather than impose) fines of a more significant amount with the regulated person concerned under its existing policy of agreeing the outcome of an investigation under its Regulatory Settlements Agreements policy. The response commented in detail on the consultation proposals, and questioned the consultation paper\u2019s presumption that the disciplinary regime that currently applies to ABS firms should be extended to all regulated firms. <\/p>
<\/a><\/div><\/li>26\/11\/2013 - Response to LSB consultation on Chairs of regulatory bodies: Consultation on an amendment to the Internal Governance Rules to require that the Chairs of the Boards of the regulatory arms of each applicable approved regulator be a lay person.<\/a><\/h2>\r\nThe consultation paper focussed on a proposed amendment to the Internal Governance Rules to require that the Chairs of the Boards of the regulatory arms of each \u201capplicable approved regulator\u201d be a lay person. In its response, the Committee raised a number of points, including that it saw \u201clittle merit in a rule change which necessarily narrows the field of candidates for the role of Chair of these bodies, where no evidence is given to show that the presence of a non-lay Chair has meaningfully impeded the independence of the regulator\u201d.<\/p>
<\/a><\/div><\/li>09\/09\/2013 - Review of the Legal Services Regulatory Framework: CLLS Submission to the Ministry of Justice<\/a><\/h2>\r\nReview of the Legal Services Regulatory Framework: CLLS Submission to the Ministry of Justice.<\/p>
<\/a><\/div><\/li>13\/08\/2013 - Response to Committee on Standards in Public Life Consultation on Lobbying Issues and Questions<\/a><\/h2>\r\n<\/p>
<\/a><\/div><\/li>24\/07\/2013 - Minutes of Meeting held in June 2013<\/a><\/h2>\r\nMinutes of Meeting held in June 2013<\/p>
<\/a><\/div><\/li>08\/07\/2013 - Response to SRA Consultation on New Overseas Rules<\/a><\/h2>\r\nResponse to SRA Consultation on New Overseas Rules<\/p>
<\/a><\/div><\/li>07\/07\/2013 - Response to SRA Consultation on New Overseas Rules \u2013 Comments on Annexes<\/a><\/h2>\r\nResponse to SRA Consultation on New Overseas Rules \u2013 Comments on Annexes<\/p>
<\/a><\/div><\/li>04\/07\/2013 - Response to SRA consultation Red Tape Initiative Phase 2: Removing unnecessary regulations and simplifying processes<\/a><\/h2>\r\nResponse to SRA consultation Red Tape Initiative Phase 2: Removing unnecessary regulations and simplifying processes<\/p>
<\/a><\/div><\/li>19\/04\/2013 - Response to SRA consultation: Indicative guidance on financial penalties<\/a><\/h2>\r\nResponse to SRA consultation: Indicative guidance on financial penalties<\/p>
<\/a><\/div><\/li>25\/03\/2013 - Response to SRA Consultation on Handbook Amendments Relating to International<\/a><\/h2>\r\nResponse to SRA Consultation on Handbook Amendments Relating to International Practice <\/p>
<\/a><\/div><\/li>12\/03\/2013 - Response to the LSB Consultation on its Draft Business Plan 2013<\/a><\/h2>\r\nResponse to the LSB Consultation on its Draft Business Plan 2013<\/p>
<\/a><\/div><\/li>11\/03\/2013 - Minutes of Meeting held in February 2013<\/a><\/h2>\r\nMinutes of Meeting held in February 2013<\/p>
<\/a><\/div><\/li>22\/01\/2013 - Response to SRA Consultation on Co-operation Agreements<\/a><\/h2>\r\nResponse to SRA Consultation on Co-operation Agreements<\/p>
<\/a><\/div><\/li>15\/08\/2012 - Response to SRA consultation on The Future of Authorised Professional Firms<\/a><\/h2>\r\nResponse to SRA consultation on The Future of Authorised Professional Firms<\/p>
<\/a><\/div><\/li>12\/04\/2012 - Response to HMG Consultation on Introducing a Statutory Register of Lobbyists<\/a><\/h2>\r\nResponse to HMG Consultation on Introducing a Statutory Register of Lobbyists<\/p>
<\/a><\/div><\/li>14\/02\/2012 - Response to the SRA's<\/a><\/h2>\r\nResponse to the SRA's \"Regulation of International Practice\" Consultation<\/p>
<\/a><\/div><\/li>17\/01\/2012 - Response to SRA consultation \u201cSRA financial protection review\u201d<\/a><\/h2>\r\nResponse to SRA consultation \u201cSRA financial protection review\u201d<\/p>
<\/a><\/div><\/li>17\/01\/2012 - Minutes of the Meeting held in December 2011<\/a><\/h2>\r\nMinutes of the Meeting held in December 2011<\/p>
<\/a><\/div><\/li>26\/10\/2011 - Minutes from Meeting held in June 2011<\/a><\/h2>\r\nMinutes from Meeting held in June 2011<\/p>
<\/a><\/div><\/li>11\/07\/2011 - Response to SRA Consultation<\/a><\/h2>\r\nResponse to SRA Consultation \"Alternative Business Structures Fee Structure\"<\/p>
<\/a><\/div><\/li>26\/04\/2011 - Response to SRA Consultation<\/a><\/h2>\r\nResponse to SRA Consultation \"Future Client Financial Protection Arrangements\" <\/p>
<\/a><\/div><\/li>28\/02\/2011 - CLLS Response to the SRA Architecture of Change Part 2 Consultation<\/a><\/h2>\r\nCLLS Response to the SRA Architecture of Change Part 2 Consultation<\/p>
<\/a><\/div><\/li>20\/12\/2017 - Looking to the Future Phase II Handbook Reforms<\/a><\/h2>\r\n<\/p>
<\/a><\/div><\/li>20\/12\/2017 - \u201cLooking to the future: better information, more choice\u201d<\/a><\/h2>\r\nResponse of the CLLS Professional Rules and Regulation Committee to the SRA Consultation \u201cLooking to the future: better information, more choice\u201d<\/p>
<\/a><\/div><\/li>19\/09\/2016 - CLLS Response - Looking to the Future - SRA Accounts Rules Review - 19 09 16<\/a><\/h2>\r\n<\/p>
<\/a><\/div><\/li>14\/09\/2016 - Response to SRA Handbook Review: Looking to the future - flexibility and public protection<\/a><\/h2>\r\n<\/p>
<\/a><\/div><\/li>24\/03\/2016 - Response to the SRA Consultation on The Insurance Act 2015 and Consequential Changes to the Minimum Terms and Conditions of Professional Indemnity Insurance<\/a><\/h2>\r\n<\/p>
<\/a><\/div><\/li>10\/03\/2016 - Minutes of the Meeting of the CLLS Professional Rules & Regulation Committee Thursday 10th March 2016<\/a><\/h2>\r\n<\/p>
<\/a><\/div><\/li>17\/09\/2015 - CLLS Consultation Response - Professional Rules and Regulation Committee -Protecting Clients Financial Interests - 14 09 15<\/a><\/h2>\r\n<\/p>
<\/a><\/div><\/li>16\/07\/2015 - Response to the Law Society\u2019s discussion paper on the Legal Ombudsman\u2019s (LeO) case fee and funding<\/a><\/h2>\r\n<\/p>
<\/a><\/div><\/li>10\/06\/2015 - Response to the Consultation on the SRA Regulatory Reform Programme<\/a><\/h2>\r\n<\/p>
<\/a><\/div><\/li>18\/02\/2015 - Response to LSB Strategic Plan 2015-18 and Busines Plan 2015-16<\/a><\/h2>\r\n<\/p>
<\/a><\/div><\/li>11\/02\/2015 - Response to the SRA Separate Business Rule Consultation<\/a><\/h2>\r\n<\/p>
<\/a><\/div><\/li>28\/01\/2015 - Response to SRA Consultation on Proportionate Regulation: reporting accountant requirements<\/a><\/h2>\r\n<\/p>
<\/a><\/div><\/li>17\/12\/2014 - Response to Consultation on SRA's Regulation of Consumer Credit Activities<\/a><\/h2>\r\n<\/p>
<\/a><\/div><\/li>16\/12\/2014 - Response to the SRA's Consultation on Overseas Accounts Rules<\/a><\/h2>\r\n<\/p>
<\/a><\/div><\/li>03\/07\/2014 - Response to further SRA consultation on proposed changes to the registered European lawyer regime<\/a><\/h2>\r\nThe Committee responded to the SRA\u2019s further consultation on its proposed amendments to the Handbook. The response commented specifically on the proposal to apply the conduct provisions to solicitors within foreign firms in the same way as it was proposed they would apply to RELs within an EEP.\r\n\r\n<\/p>
<\/a><\/div><\/li>03\/07\/2014 - Response to SRA Consultation Paper on Multi-Disciplinary Practices<\/a><\/h2>\r\nThe consultation sought views on policy changes and associated amendments to the SRA Handbook which were aimed at achieving a proportionate regulatory framework for the authorisation and supervision of multi-disciplinary alternative business structures providing legal and non\u2013legal services. One driver behind the consultation was the SRA\u2019s concern that some of the rules in the SRA Handbook may have become an impediment to the effective licensing and regulation of some licensed bodies; and in particular, those rules that require all legal activity within an SRA authorised MDP to be SRA regulated. The CLLS response argued that if non-Reserved activity is not regulated when it is carried out by a non-Authorised person, then it need not be regulated when it is carried out by a better-qualified Authorised Person. The CLLS argued that this regulatory asymmetry means that solicitors, as Authorised Persons, are commercially disadvantaged in comparison with non-Authorised Persons, when doing the same tasks. The CLLS response raised some further concerns, (including the fact that the SRA\u2019s regulatory proposals in this area do not appear to be based on a comprehensive risk analysis of the field), and responded to the specific consultation questions. <\/p>
<\/a><\/div><\/li>23\/06\/2014 - Response to SRA consultation: Proportionate regulation - changes to minimum compulsory professional indemnity cover<\/a><\/h2>\r\nThis consultation paper contained proposals which the SRA stated were aimed at reducing the regulatory burden, providing targeted regulation and increasing competition. The proposals form part of a wider SRA review of the scope of cover under the Minimum Terms and Conditions. The CLLS submission in response supported in principle the idea of reducing the insurance costs burden in a manner which would allow firms to consider the appropriate level of cover they need (subject to a mandatory minimum). However, it expressed the view that the SRA needs to have consulted with the insurers before making specific proposals. It went on to state that the consultation paper had adduced no evidence that the proposals would in fact attract the costs reductions they are aiming for, and that a reduction in the minimum insurance requirement may well have no effect on the premiums charged by insurance companies. It stressed the need for the proposals to be evidence-based, and strongly recommended that any reform be delayed until the 2015 renewal.<\/p>
<\/a><\/div><\/li>20\/06\/2014 - Response to SRA consultation: Compensation Arrangements Review - the introduction of an eligibility criteria<\/a><\/h2>\r\nThe consultation invited views on the SRA\u2019s arrangements for compensating clients who suffer financial loss due to dishonesty, failure to account or civil liability of uninsured practitioners. The CLLS submission responded to the specific consultation questions. The submission also expressed, more generally, a concern that the SRA was consulting on an important topic that may have significant implications, in particular for consumers who do suffer losses, without explaining (i) clearly what has driven the proposal or (ii) providing supporting evidence, that only the SRA can provide, about the impact of the proposal.<\/p>
<\/a><\/div><\/li>19\/06\/2014 - Response to SRA consultation on Proportionate regulation: changes to reporting accounting requirements<\/a><\/h2>\r\nThis consultation paper contained two proposals: removal of the mandatory requirement that firms must submit an annual accountant's report to the SRA, and requiring COFAs to sign a declaration that they are satisfied that their respective firms are managing their client accounts in accordance with the SRA Account Rules. The proposals form part of an SRA programme to reform its regulatory regime \u201cto reduce unnecessary burdens and provide flexibility of approach to deliver good financial management\u201d. The submission responded to the specific consultation questions, and argued more generally that the consultation was premature, and that no changes should be made to the current reporting accountant regime until such time as the general review of the SRA accounts rules had been completed. <\/p>
<\/a><\/div><\/li>02\/06\/2014 - Response to SRA consultation \u201cAnnual keeping of the roll exercise\u201d<\/a><\/h2>\r\nThe consultation sought views on proposals to remove \u201cthe unnecessary and over burdensome process which requires solicitors who do not hold practising certificates to complete a yearly online application and pay a fee if they wish their name to remain on the roll of solicitors\u201d. The Submission broadly agreed with the consultation proposal to stop the annual updating process while keeping the power for the SRA to carry out updates when it thinks these are needed. It also broadly agreed with the proposal\u2019s expressed purpose, being \u2018to remove the unnecessary and burdensome process\u2019 involved with solicitors who do not have Practising Certificates (\u2018PCs\u2019) having to renew their roll applications annually. However, the Submission also raised concerns about the failure of the Consultation Paper to address the impact of remaining on the roll in any detail, including in relation to the status of undertakings given by non-practising solicitors who remain on the roll. It also raised concerns about some of the consequences that might arise were the annual updating process to be dispensed with. <\/p>
<\/a><\/div><\/li>02\/06\/2014 - Response to SRA consultation \u201cRed Tape Initiative: Residual client balances\u201d<\/a><\/h2>\r\nThe consultation sought views on proposals to amend the SRA Account Rules 2011 relating to how practitioners deal with client money they are unable to return to clients at the end of a matter (residual client balances), including the processes surrounding the withdrawal of such funds and the basis for distribution to charities. The Submission in response noted that the CLLS supports a proposal to increase the level at which practitioners can self-certify transfers of residual client balances, although it noted that there are differing views within the CLLS about the level at which SRA authorisation should be required. The submission also expressed concern that a significant increase in the self-certification level should be balanced by appropriate but proportional checks and balances. Furthermore, it agreed with the SRA\u2019s view that it ought not to restrict the charities to which residual balances should be transferred. <\/p>
<\/a><\/div><\/li>15\/04\/2014 - Proposed Changes in the Registered European Lawyer Regime<\/a><\/h2>\r\n<\/p>
<\/a><\/div><\/li>11\/02\/2014 - Response to LSB consultation on its draft 2014\/15 Business Plan<\/a><\/h2>\r\nThe response highlighted the amount that the City firms pay annually towards the regulatory and \u2018permitted purposes\u2019 costs of the legal sector, and expressed concern about the absence of the item \u201cMapping the Unregulated Market\u201d from the LSB\u2019s planned research programme. The response called on the LSB to answer a question that it had posed in an earlier consultation (\u201cEnhancing consumer protection, reducing regulatory restrictions\u201d) namely \u201cthere is a question about the relative balance of regulatory focus. Is the current balance of regulation right or are there areas where deregulation may be appropriate?\u2019\u201c\r\n\r\n\r\n<\/p>
<\/a><\/div><\/li>11\/02\/2014 - Response to SRA consultation: Proposal to increase the SRA's internal fining powers<\/a><\/h2>\r\nThe consultation paper invited views on the SRA\u2019s proposal to increase the current level of its fining powers for \u2018traditional\u2019 firms (i.e. non-ABS firms) from the current level of \u00a32,000, and to enable the SRA to agree (rather than impose) fines of a more significant amount with the regulated person concerned under its existing policy of agreeing the outcome of an investigation under its Regulatory Settlements Agreements policy. The response commented in detail on the consultation proposals, and questioned the consultation paper\u2019s presumption that the disciplinary regime that currently applies to ABS firms should be extended to all regulated firms. <\/p>
<\/a><\/div><\/li>26\/11\/2013 - Response to LSB consultation on Chairs of regulatory bodies: Consultation on an amendment to the Internal Governance Rules to require that the Chairs of the Boards of the regulatory arms of each applicable approved regulator be a lay person.<\/a><\/h2>\r\nThe consultation paper focussed on a proposed amendment to the Internal Governance Rules to require that the Chairs of the Boards of the regulatory arms of each \u201capplicable approved regulator\u201d be a lay person. In its response, the Committee raised a number of points, including that it saw \u201clittle merit in a rule change which necessarily narrows the field of candidates for the role of Chair of these bodies, where no evidence is given to show that the presence of a non-lay Chair has meaningfully impeded the independence of the regulator\u201d.<\/p>
<\/a><\/div><\/li>09\/09\/2013 - Review of the Legal Services Regulatory Framework: CLLS Submission to the Ministry of Justice<\/a><\/h2>\r\nReview of the Legal Services Regulatory Framework: CLLS Submission to the Ministry of Justice.<\/p>
<\/a><\/div><\/li>13\/08\/2013 - Response to Committee on Standards in Public Life Consultation on Lobbying Issues and Questions<\/a><\/h2>\r\n<\/p>
<\/a><\/div><\/li>24\/07\/2013 - Minutes of Meeting held in June 2013<\/a><\/h2>\r\nMinutes of Meeting held in June 2013<\/p>
<\/a><\/div><\/li>08\/07\/2013 - Response to SRA Consultation on New Overseas Rules<\/a><\/h2>\r\nResponse to SRA Consultation on New Overseas Rules<\/p>
<\/a><\/div><\/li>07\/07\/2013 - Response to SRA Consultation on New Overseas Rules \u2013 Comments on Annexes<\/a><\/h2>\r\nResponse to SRA Consultation on New Overseas Rules \u2013 Comments on Annexes<\/p>
<\/a><\/div><\/li>04\/07\/2013 - Response to SRA consultation Red Tape Initiative Phase 2: Removing unnecessary regulations and simplifying processes<\/a><\/h2>\r\nResponse to SRA consultation Red Tape Initiative Phase 2: Removing unnecessary regulations and simplifying processes<\/p>
<\/a><\/div><\/li>19\/04\/2013 - Response to SRA consultation: Indicative guidance on financial penalties<\/a><\/h2>\r\nResponse to SRA consultation: Indicative guidance on financial penalties<\/p>
<\/a><\/div><\/li>25\/03\/2013 - Response to SRA Consultation on Handbook Amendments Relating to International<\/a><\/h2>\r\nResponse to SRA Consultation on Handbook Amendments Relating to International Practice <\/p>
<\/a><\/div><\/li>12\/03\/2013 - Response to the LSB Consultation on its Draft Business Plan 2013<\/a><\/h2>\r\nResponse to the LSB Consultation on its Draft Business Plan 2013<\/p>
<\/a><\/div><\/li>11\/03\/2013 - Minutes of Meeting held in February 2013<\/a><\/h2>\r\nMinutes of Meeting held in February 2013<\/p>
<\/a><\/div><\/li>22\/01\/2013 - Response to SRA Consultation on Co-operation Agreements<\/a><\/h2>\r\nResponse to SRA Consultation on Co-operation Agreements<\/p>
<\/a><\/div><\/li>15\/08\/2012 - Response to SRA consultation on The Future of Authorised Professional Firms<\/a><\/h2>\r\nResponse to SRA consultation on The Future of Authorised Professional Firms<\/p>
<\/a><\/div><\/li>12\/04\/2012 - Response to HMG Consultation on Introducing a Statutory Register of Lobbyists<\/a><\/h2>\r\nResponse to HMG Consultation on Introducing a Statutory Register of Lobbyists<\/p>
<\/a><\/div><\/li>14\/02\/2012 - Response to the SRA's<\/a><\/h2>\r\nResponse to the SRA's \"Regulation of International Practice\" Consultation<\/p>
<\/a><\/div><\/li>17\/01\/2012 - Response to SRA consultation \u201cSRA financial protection review\u201d<\/a><\/h2>\r\nResponse to SRA consultation \u201cSRA financial protection review\u201d<\/p>
<\/a><\/div><\/li>17\/01\/2012 - Minutes of the Meeting held in December 2011<\/a><\/h2>\r\nMinutes of the Meeting held in December 2011<\/p>
<\/a><\/div><\/li>26\/10\/2011 - Minutes from Meeting held in June 2011<\/a><\/h2>\r\nMinutes from Meeting held in June 2011<\/p>
<\/a><\/div><\/li>11\/07\/2011 - Response to SRA Consultation<\/a><\/h2>\r\nResponse to SRA Consultation \"Alternative Business Structures Fee Structure\"<\/p>
<\/a><\/div><\/li>26\/04\/2011 - Response to SRA Consultation<\/a><\/h2>\r\nResponse to SRA Consultation \"Future Client Financial Protection Arrangements\" <\/p>
<\/a><\/div><\/li>28\/02\/2011 - CLLS Response to the SRA Architecture of Change Part 2 Consultation<\/a><\/h2>\r\nCLLS Response to the SRA Architecture of Change Part 2 Consultation<\/p>
<\/a><\/div><\/li>20\/12\/2017 - \u201cLooking to the future: better information, more choice\u201d<\/a><\/h2>\r\nResponse of the CLLS Professional Rules and Regulation Committee to the SRA Consultation \u201cLooking to the future: better information, more choice\u201d<\/p>
<\/a><\/div><\/li>19\/09\/2016 - CLLS Response - Looking to the Future - SRA Accounts Rules Review - 19 09 16<\/a><\/h2>\r\n<\/p>
<\/a><\/div><\/li>14\/09\/2016 - Response to SRA Handbook Review: Looking to the future - flexibility and public protection<\/a><\/h2>\r\n<\/p>
<\/a><\/div><\/li>24\/03\/2016 - Response to the SRA Consultation on The Insurance Act 2015 and Consequential Changes to the Minimum Terms and Conditions of Professional Indemnity Insurance<\/a><\/h2>\r\n<\/p>
<\/a><\/div><\/li>10\/03\/2016 - Minutes of the Meeting of the CLLS Professional Rules & Regulation Committee Thursday 10th March 2016<\/a><\/h2>\r\n<\/p>
<\/a><\/div><\/li>17\/09\/2015 - CLLS Consultation Response - Professional Rules and Regulation Committee -Protecting Clients Financial Interests - 14 09 15<\/a><\/h2>\r\n<\/p>
<\/a><\/div><\/li>16\/07\/2015 - Response to the Law Society\u2019s discussion paper on the Legal Ombudsman\u2019s (LeO) case fee and funding<\/a><\/h2>\r\n<\/p>
<\/a><\/div><\/li>10\/06\/2015 - Response to the Consultation on the SRA Regulatory Reform Programme<\/a><\/h2>\r\n<\/p>
<\/a><\/div><\/li>18\/02\/2015 - Response to LSB Strategic Plan 2015-18 and Busines Plan 2015-16<\/a><\/h2>\r\n<\/p>
<\/a><\/div><\/li>11\/02\/2015 - Response to the SRA Separate Business Rule Consultation<\/a><\/h2>\r\n<\/p>
<\/a><\/div><\/li>28\/01\/2015 - Response to SRA Consultation on Proportionate Regulation: reporting accountant requirements<\/a><\/h2>\r\n<\/p>
<\/a><\/div><\/li>17\/12\/2014 - Response to Consultation on SRA's Regulation of Consumer Credit Activities<\/a><\/h2>\r\n<\/p>
<\/a><\/div><\/li>16\/12\/2014 - Response to the SRA's Consultation on Overseas Accounts Rules<\/a><\/h2>\r\n<\/p>
<\/a><\/div><\/li>03\/07\/2014 - Response to further SRA consultation on proposed changes to the registered European lawyer regime<\/a><\/h2>\r\nThe Committee responded to the SRA\u2019s further consultation on its proposed amendments to the Handbook. The response commented specifically on the proposal to apply the conduct provisions to solicitors within foreign firms in the same way as it was proposed they would apply to RELs within an EEP.\r\n\r\n<\/p>
<\/a><\/div><\/li>03\/07\/2014 - Response to SRA Consultation Paper on Multi-Disciplinary Practices<\/a><\/h2>\r\nThe consultation sought views on policy changes and associated amendments to the SRA Handbook which were aimed at achieving a proportionate regulatory framework for the authorisation and supervision of multi-disciplinary alternative business structures providing legal and non\u2013legal services. One driver behind the consultation was the SRA\u2019s concern that some of the rules in the SRA Handbook may have become an impediment to the effective licensing and regulation of some licensed bodies; and in particular, those rules that require all legal activity within an SRA authorised MDP to be SRA regulated. The CLLS response argued that if non-Reserved activity is not regulated when it is carried out by a non-Authorised person, then it need not be regulated when it is carried out by a better-qualified Authorised Person. The CLLS argued that this regulatory asymmetry means that solicitors, as Authorised Persons, are commercially disadvantaged in comparison with non-Authorised Persons, when doing the same tasks. The CLLS response raised some further concerns, (including the fact that the SRA\u2019s regulatory proposals in this area do not appear to be based on a comprehensive risk analysis of the field), and responded to the specific consultation questions. <\/p>
<\/a><\/div><\/li>23\/06\/2014 - Response to SRA consultation: Proportionate regulation - changes to minimum compulsory professional indemnity cover<\/a><\/h2>\r\nThis consultation paper contained proposals which the SRA stated were aimed at reducing the regulatory burden, providing targeted regulation and increasing competition. The proposals form part of a wider SRA review of the scope of cover under the Minimum Terms and Conditions. The CLLS submission in response supported in principle the idea of reducing the insurance costs burden in a manner which would allow firms to consider the appropriate level of cover they need (subject to a mandatory minimum). However, it expressed the view that the SRA needs to have consulted with the insurers before making specific proposals. It went on to state that the consultation paper had adduced no evidence that the proposals would in fact attract the costs reductions they are aiming for, and that a reduction in the minimum insurance requirement may well have no effect on the premiums charged by insurance companies. It stressed the need for the proposals to be evidence-based, and strongly recommended that any reform be delayed until the 2015 renewal.<\/p>
<\/a><\/div><\/li>20\/06\/2014 - Response to SRA consultation: Compensation Arrangements Review - the introduction of an eligibility criteria<\/a><\/h2>\r\nThe consultation invited views on the SRA\u2019s arrangements for compensating clients who suffer financial loss due to dishonesty, failure to account or civil liability of uninsured practitioners. The CLLS submission responded to the specific consultation questions. The submission also expressed, more generally, a concern that the SRA was consulting on an important topic that may have significant implications, in particular for consumers who do suffer losses, without explaining (i) clearly what has driven the proposal or (ii) providing supporting evidence, that only the SRA can provide, about the impact of the proposal.<\/p>
<\/a><\/div><\/li>19\/06\/2014 - Response to SRA consultation on Proportionate regulation: changes to reporting accounting requirements<\/a><\/h2>\r\nThis consultation paper contained two proposals: removal of the mandatory requirement that firms must submit an annual accountant's report to the SRA, and requiring COFAs to sign a declaration that they are satisfied that their respective firms are managing their client accounts in accordance with the SRA Account Rules. The proposals form part of an SRA programme to reform its regulatory regime \u201cto reduce unnecessary burdens and provide flexibility of approach to deliver good financial management\u201d. The submission responded to the specific consultation questions, and argued more generally that the consultation was premature, and that no changes should be made to the current reporting accountant regime until such time as the general review of the SRA accounts rules had been completed. <\/p>
<\/a><\/div><\/li>02\/06\/2014 - Response to SRA consultation \u201cAnnual keeping of the roll exercise\u201d<\/a><\/h2>\r\nThe consultation sought views on proposals to remove \u201cthe unnecessary and over burdensome process which requires solicitors who do not hold practising certificates to complete a yearly online application and pay a fee if they wish their name to remain on the roll of solicitors\u201d. The Submission broadly agreed with the consultation proposal to stop the annual updating process while keeping the power for the SRA to carry out updates when it thinks these are needed. It also broadly agreed with the proposal\u2019s expressed purpose, being \u2018to remove the unnecessary and burdensome process\u2019 involved with solicitors who do not have Practising Certificates (\u2018PCs\u2019) having to renew their roll applications annually. However, the Submission also raised concerns about the failure of the Consultation Paper to address the impact of remaining on the roll in any detail, including in relation to the status of undertakings given by non-practising solicitors who remain on the roll. It also raised concerns about some of the consequences that might arise were the annual updating process to be dispensed with. <\/p>
<\/a><\/div><\/li>02\/06\/2014 - Response to SRA consultation \u201cRed Tape Initiative: Residual client balances\u201d<\/a><\/h2>\r\nThe consultation sought views on proposals to amend the SRA Account Rules 2011 relating to how practitioners deal with client money they are unable to return to clients at the end of a matter (residual client balances), including the processes surrounding the withdrawal of such funds and the basis for distribution to charities. The Submission in response noted that the CLLS supports a proposal to increase the level at which practitioners can self-certify transfers of residual client balances, although it noted that there are differing views within the CLLS about the level at which SRA authorisation should be required. The submission also expressed concern that a significant increase in the self-certification level should be balanced by appropriate but proportional checks and balances. Furthermore, it agreed with the SRA\u2019s view that it ought not to restrict the charities to which residual balances should be transferred. <\/p>
<\/a><\/div><\/li>15\/04\/2014 - Proposed Changes in the Registered European Lawyer Regime<\/a><\/h2>\r\n<\/p>
<\/a><\/div><\/li>11\/02\/2014 - Response to LSB consultation on its draft 2014\/15 Business Plan<\/a><\/h2>\r\nThe response highlighted the amount that the City firms pay annually towards the regulatory and \u2018permitted purposes\u2019 costs of the legal sector, and expressed concern about the absence of the item \u201cMapping the Unregulated Market\u201d from the LSB\u2019s planned research programme. The response called on the LSB to answer a question that it had posed in an earlier consultation (\u201cEnhancing consumer protection, reducing regulatory restrictions\u201d) namely \u201cthere is a question about the relative balance of regulatory focus. Is the current balance of regulation right or are there areas where deregulation may be appropriate?\u2019\u201c\r\n\r\n\r\n<\/p>
<\/a><\/div><\/li>11\/02\/2014 - Response to SRA consultation: Proposal to increase the SRA's internal fining powers<\/a><\/h2>\r\nThe consultation paper invited views on the SRA\u2019s proposal to increase the current level of its fining powers for \u2018traditional\u2019 firms (i.e. non-ABS firms) from the current level of \u00a32,000, and to enable the SRA to agree (rather than impose) fines of a more significant amount with the regulated person concerned under its existing policy of agreeing the outcome of an investigation under its Regulatory Settlements Agreements policy. The response commented in detail on the consultation proposals, and questioned the consultation paper\u2019s presumption that the disciplinary regime that currently applies to ABS firms should be extended to all regulated firms. <\/p>
<\/a><\/div><\/li>26\/11\/2013 - Response to LSB consultation on Chairs of regulatory bodies: Consultation on an amendment to the Internal Governance Rules to require that the Chairs of the Boards of the regulatory arms of each applicable approved regulator be a lay person.<\/a><\/h2>\r\nThe consultation paper focussed on a proposed amendment to the Internal Governance Rules to require that the Chairs of the Boards of the regulatory arms of each \u201capplicable approved regulator\u201d be a lay person. In its response, the Committee raised a number of points, including that it saw \u201clittle merit in a rule change which necessarily narrows the field of candidates for the role of Chair of these bodies, where no evidence is given to show that the presence of a non-lay Chair has meaningfully impeded the independence of the regulator\u201d.<\/p>
<\/a><\/div><\/li>09\/09\/2013 - Review of the Legal Services Regulatory Framework: CLLS Submission to the Ministry of Justice<\/a><\/h2>\r\nReview of the Legal Services Regulatory Framework: CLLS Submission to the Ministry of Justice.<\/p>
<\/a><\/div><\/li>13\/08\/2013 - Response to Committee on Standards in Public Life Consultation on Lobbying Issues and Questions<\/a><\/h2>\r\n<\/p>
<\/a><\/div><\/li>24\/07\/2013 - Minutes of Meeting held in June 2013<\/a><\/h2>\r\nMinutes of Meeting held in June 2013<\/p>
<\/a><\/div><\/li>08\/07\/2013 - Response to SRA Consultation on New Overseas Rules<\/a><\/h2>\r\nResponse to SRA Consultation on New Overseas Rules<\/p>
<\/a><\/div><\/li>07\/07\/2013 - Response to SRA Consultation on New Overseas Rules \u2013 Comments on Annexes<\/a><\/h2>\r\nResponse to SRA Consultation on New Overseas Rules \u2013 Comments on Annexes<\/p>
<\/a><\/div><\/li>04\/07\/2013 - Response to SRA consultation Red Tape Initiative Phase 2: Removing unnecessary regulations and simplifying processes<\/a><\/h2>\r\nResponse to SRA consultation Red Tape Initiative Phase 2: Removing unnecessary regulations and simplifying processes<\/p>
<\/a><\/div><\/li>19\/04\/2013 - Response to SRA consultation: Indicative guidance on financial penalties<\/a><\/h2>\r\nResponse to SRA consultation: Indicative guidance on financial penalties<\/p>
<\/a><\/div><\/li>25\/03\/2013 - Response to SRA Consultation on Handbook Amendments Relating to International<\/a><\/h2>\r\nResponse to SRA Consultation on Handbook Amendments Relating to International Practice <\/p>
<\/a><\/div><\/li>12\/03\/2013 - Response to the LSB Consultation on its Draft Business Plan 2013<\/a><\/h2>\r\nResponse to the LSB Consultation on its Draft Business Plan 2013<\/p>
<\/a><\/div><\/li>11\/03\/2013 - Minutes of Meeting held in February 2013<\/a><\/h2>\r\nMinutes of Meeting held in February 2013<\/p>
<\/a><\/div><\/li>22\/01\/2013 - Response to SRA Consultation on Co-operation Agreements<\/a><\/h2>\r\nResponse to SRA Consultation on Co-operation Agreements<\/p>
<\/a><\/div><\/li>15\/08\/2012 - Response to SRA consultation on The Future of Authorised Professional Firms<\/a><\/h2>\r\nResponse to SRA consultation on The Future of Authorised Professional Firms<\/p>
<\/a><\/div><\/li>12\/04\/2012 - Response to HMG Consultation on Introducing a Statutory Register of Lobbyists<\/a><\/h2>\r\nResponse to HMG Consultation on Introducing a Statutory Register of Lobbyists<\/p>
<\/a><\/div><\/li>14\/02\/2012 - Response to the SRA's<\/a><\/h2>\r\nResponse to the SRA's \"Regulation of International Practice\" Consultation<\/p>
<\/a><\/div><\/li>17\/01\/2012 - Response to SRA consultation \u201cSRA financial protection review\u201d<\/a><\/h2>\r\nResponse to SRA consultation \u201cSRA financial protection review\u201d<\/p>
<\/a><\/div><\/li>17\/01\/2012 - Minutes of the Meeting held in December 2011<\/a><\/h2>\r\nMinutes of the Meeting held in December 2011<\/p>
<\/a><\/div><\/li>26\/10\/2011 - Minutes from Meeting held in June 2011<\/a><\/h2>\r\nMinutes from Meeting held in June 2011<\/p>
<\/a><\/div><\/li>11\/07\/2011 - Response to SRA Consultation<\/a><\/h2>\r\nResponse to SRA Consultation \"Alternative Business Structures Fee Structure\"<\/p>
<\/a><\/div><\/li>26\/04\/2011 - Response to SRA Consultation<\/a><\/h2>\r\nResponse to SRA Consultation \"Future Client Financial Protection Arrangements\" <\/p>
<\/a><\/div><\/li>28\/02\/2011 - CLLS Response to the SRA Architecture of Change Part 2 Consultation<\/a><\/h2>\r\nCLLS Response to the SRA Architecture of Change Part 2 Consultation<\/p>
<\/a><\/div><\/li>19\/09\/2016 - CLLS Response - Looking to the Future - SRA Accounts Rules Review - 19 09 16<\/a><\/h2>\r\n<\/p>
<\/a><\/div><\/li>14\/09\/2016 - Response to SRA Handbook Review: Looking to the future - flexibility and public protection<\/a><\/h2>\r\n<\/p>
<\/a><\/div><\/li>24\/03\/2016 - Response to the SRA Consultation on The Insurance Act 2015 and Consequential Changes to the Minimum Terms and Conditions of Professional Indemnity Insurance<\/a><\/h2>\r\n<\/p>
<\/a><\/div><\/li>10\/03\/2016 - Minutes of the Meeting of the CLLS Professional Rules & Regulation Committee Thursday 10th March 2016<\/a><\/h2>\r\n<\/p>
<\/a><\/div><\/li>17\/09\/2015 - CLLS Consultation Response - Professional Rules and Regulation Committee -Protecting Clients Financial Interests - 14 09 15<\/a><\/h2>\r\n<\/p>
<\/a><\/div><\/li>16\/07\/2015 - Response to the Law Society\u2019s discussion paper on the Legal Ombudsman\u2019s (LeO) case fee and funding<\/a><\/h2>\r\n<\/p>
<\/a><\/div><\/li>10\/06\/2015 - Response to the Consultation on the SRA Regulatory Reform Programme<\/a><\/h2>\r\n<\/p>
<\/a><\/div><\/li>18\/02\/2015 - Response to LSB Strategic Plan 2015-18 and Busines Plan 2015-16<\/a><\/h2>\r\n<\/p>
<\/a><\/div><\/li>11\/02\/2015 - Response to the SRA Separate Business Rule Consultation<\/a><\/h2>\r\n<\/p>
<\/a><\/div><\/li>28\/01\/2015 - Response to SRA Consultation on Proportionate Regulation: reporting accountant requirements<\/a><\/h2>\r\n<\/p>
<\/a><\/div><\/li>17\/12\/2014 - Response to Consultation on SRA's Regulation of Consumer Credit Activities<\/a><\/h2>\r\n<\/p>
<\/a><\/div><\/li>16\/12\/2014 - Response to the SRA's Consultation on Overseas Accounts Rules<\/a><\/h2>\r\n<\/p>
<\/a><\/div><\/li>03\/07\/2014 - Response to further SRA consultation on proposed changes to the registered European lawyer regime<\/a><\/h2>\r\nThe Committee responded to the SRA\u2019s further consultation on its proposed amendments to the Handbook. The response commented specifically on the proposal to apply the conduct provisions to solicitors within foreign firms in the same way as it was proposed they would apply to RELs within an EEP.\r\n\r\n<\/p>
<\/a><\/div><\/li>03\/07\/2014 - Response to SRA Consultation Paper on Multi-Disciplinary Practices<\/a><\/h2>\r\nThe consultation sought views on policy changes and associated amendments to the SRA Handbook which were aimed at achieving a proportionate regulatory framework for the authorisation and supervision of multi-disciplinary alternative business structures providing legal and non\u2013legal services. One driver behind the consultation was the SRA\u2019s concern that some of the rules in the SRA Handbook may have become an impediment to the effective licensing and regulation of some licensed bodies; and in particular, those rules that require all legal activity within an SRA authorised MDP to be SRA regulated. The CLLS response argued that if non-Reserved activity is not regulated when it is carried out by a non-Authorised person, then it need not be regulated when it is carried out by a better-qualified Authorised Person. The CLLS argued that this regulatory asymmetry means that solicitors, as Authorised Persons, are commercially disadvantaged in comparison with non-Authorised Persons, when doing the same tasks. The CLLS response raised some further concerns, (including the fact that the SRA\u2019s regulatory proposals in this area do not appear to be based on a comprehensive risk analysis of the field), and responded to the specific consultation questions. <\/p>
<\/a><\/div><\/li>23\/06\/2014 - Response to SRA consultation: Proportionate regulation - changes to minimum compulsory professional indemnity cover<\/a><\/h2>\r\nThis consultation paper contained proposals which the SRA stated were aimed at reducing the regulatory burden, providing targeted regulation and increasing competition. The proposals form part of a wider SRA review of the scope of cover under the Minimum Terms and Conditions. The CLLS submission in response supported in principle the idea of reducing the insurance costs burden in a manner which would allow firms to consider the appropriate level of cover they need (subject to a mandatory minimum). However, it expressed the view that the SRA needs to have consulted with the insurers before making specific proposals. It went on to state that the consultation paper had adduced no evidence that the proposals would in fact attract the costs reductions they are aiming for, and that a reduction in the minimum insurance requirement may well have no effect on the premiums charged by insurance companies. It stressed the need for the proposals to be evidence-based, and strongly recommended that any reform be delayed until the 2015 renewal.<\/p>
<\/a><\/div><\/li>20\/06\/2014 - Response to SRA consultation: Compensation Arrangements Review - the introduction of an eligibility criteria<\/a><\/h2>\r\nThe consultation invited views on the SRA\u2019s arrangements for compensating clients who suffer financial loss due to dishonesty, failure to account or civil liability of uninsured practitioners. The CLLS submission responded to the specific consultation questions. The submission also expressed, more generally, a concern that the SRA was consulting on an important topic that may have significant implications, in particular for consumers who do suffer losses, without explaining (i) clearly what has driven the proposal or (ii) providing supporting evidence, that only the SRA can provide, about the impact of the proposal.<\/p>
<\/a><\/div><\/li>19\/06\/2014 - Response to SRA consultation on Proportionate regulation: changes to reporting accounting requirements<\/a><\/h2>\r\nThis consultation paper contained two proposals: removal of the mandatory requirement that firms must submit an annual accountant's report to the SRA, and requiring COFAs to sign a declaration that they are satisfied that their respective firms are managing their client accounts in accordance with the SRA Account Rules. The proposals form part of an SRA programme to reform its regulatory regime \u201cto reduce unnecessary burdens and provide flexibility of approach to deliver good financial management\u201d. The submission responded to the specific consultation questions, and argued more generally that the consultation was premature, and that no changes should be made to the current reporting accountant regime until such time as the general review of the SRA accounts rules had been completed. <\/p>
<\/a><\/div><\/li>02\/06\/2014 - Response to SRA consultation \u201cAnnual keeping of the roll exercise\u201d<\/a><\/h2>\r\nThe consultation sought views on proposals to remove \u201cthe unnecessary and over burdensome process which requires solicitors who do not hold practising certificates to complete a yearly online application and pay a fee if they wish their name to remain on the roll of solicitors\u201d. The Submission broadly agreed with the consultation proposal to stop the annual updating process while keeping the power for the SRA to carry out updates when it thinks these are needed. It also broadly agreed with the proposal\u2019s expressed purpose, being \u2018to remove the unnecessary and burdensome process\u2019 involved with solicitors who do not have Practising Certificates (\u2018PCs\u2019) having to renew their roll applications annually. However, the Submission also raised concerns about the failure of the Consultation Paper to address the impact of remaining on the roll in any detail, including in relation to the status of undertakings given by non-practising solicitors who remain on the roll. It also raised concerns about some of the consequences that might arise were the annual updating process to be dispensed with. <\/p>
<\/a><\/div><\/li>02\/06\/2014 - Response to SRA consultation \u201cRed Tape Initiative: Residual client balances\u201d<\/a><\/h2>\r\nThe consultation sought views on proposals to amend the SRA Account Rules 2011 relating to how practitioners deal with client money they are unable to return to clients at the end of a matter (residual client balances), including the processes surrounding the withdrawal of such funds and the basis for distribution to charities. The Submission in response noted that the CLLS supports a proposal to increase the level at which practitioners can self-certify transfers of residual client balances, although it noted that there are differing views within the CLLS about the level at which SRA authorisation should be required. The submission also expressed concern that a significant increase in the self-certification level should be balanced by appropriate but proportional checks and balances. Furthermore, it agreed with the SRA\u2019s view that it ought not to restrict the charities to which residual balances should be transferred. <\/p>
<\/a><\/div><\/li>15\/04\/2014 - Proposed Changes in the Registered European Lawyer Regime<\/a><\/h2>\r\n<\/p>
<\/a><\/div><\/li>11\/02\/2014 - Response to LSB consultation on its draft 2014\/15 Business Plan<\/a><\/h2>\r\nThe response highlighted the amount that the City firms pay annually towards the regulatory and \u2018permitted purposes\u2019 costs of the legal sector, and expressed concern about the absence of the item \u201cMapping the Unregulated Market\u201d from the LSB\u2019s planned research programme. The response called on the LSB to answer a question that it had posed in an earlier consultation (\u201cEnhancing consumer protection, reducing regulatory restrictions\u201d) namely \u201cthere is a question about the relative balance of regulatory focus. Is the current balance of regulation right or are there areas where deregulation may be appropriate?\u2019\u201c\r\n\r\n\r\n<\/p>
<\/a><\/div><\/li>11\/02\/2014 - Response to SRA consultation: Proposal to increase the SRA's internal fining powers<\/a><\/h2>\r\nThe consultation paper invited views on the SRA\u2019s proposal to increase the current level of its fining powers for \u2018traditional\u2019 firms (i.e. non-ABS firms) from the current level of \u00a32,000, and to enable the SRA to agree (rather than impose) fines of a more significant amount with the regulated person concerned under its existing policy of agreeing the outcome of an investigation under its Regulatory Settlements Agreements policy. The response commented in detail on the consultation proposals, and questioned the consultation paper\u2019s presumption that the disciplinary regime that currently applies to ABS firms should be extended to all regulated firms. <\/p>
<\/a><\/div><\/li>26\/11\/2013 - Response to LSB consultation on Chairs of regulatory bodies: Consultation on an amendment to the Internal Governance Rules to require that the Chairs of the Boards of the regulatory arms of each applicable approved regulator be a lay person.<\/a><\/h2>\r\nThe consultation paper focussed on a proposed amendment to the Internal Governance Rules to require that the Chairs of the Boards of the regulatory arms of each \u201capplicable approved regulator\u201d be a lay person. In its response, the Committee raised a number of points, including that it saw \u201clittle merit in a rule change which necessarily narrows the field of candidates for the role of Chair of these bodies, where no evidence is given to show that the presence of a non-lay Chair has meaningfully impeded the independence of the regulator\u201d.<\/p>
<\/a><\/div><\/li>09\/09\/2013 - Review of the Legal Services Regulatory Framework: CLLS Submission to the Ministry of Justice<\/a><\/h2>\r\nReview of the Legal Services Regulatory Framework: CLLS Submission to the Ministry of Justice.<\/p>
<\/a><\/div><\/li>13\/08\/2013 - Response to Committee on Standards in Public Life Consultation on Lobbying Issues and Questions<\/a><\/h2>\r\n<\/p>
<\/a><\/div><\/li>24\/07\/2013 - Minutes of Meeting held in June 2013<\/a><\/h2>\r\nMinutes of Meeting held in June 2013<\/p>
<\/a><\/div><\/li>08\/07\/2013 - Response to SRA Consultation on New Overseas Rules<\/a><\/h2>\r\nResponse to SRA Consultation on New Overseas Rules<\/p>
<\/a><\/div><\/li>07\/07\/2013 - Response to SRA Consultation on New Overseas Rules \u2013 Comments on Annexes<\/a><\/h2>\r\nResponse to SRA Consultation on New Overseas Rules \u2013 Comments on Annexes<\/p>
<\/a><\/div><\/li>04\/07\/2013 - Response to SRA consultation Red Tape Initiative Phase 2: Removing unnecessary regulations and simplifying processes<\/a><\/h2>\r\nResponse to SRA consultation Red Tape Initiative Phase 2: Removing unnecessary regulations and simplifying processes<\/p>
<\/a><\/div><\/li>19\/04\/2013 - Response to SRA consultation: Indicative guidance on financial penalties<\/a><\/h2>\r\nResponse to SRA consultation: Indicative guidance on financial penalties<\/p>
<\/a><\/div><\/li>25\/03\/2013 - Response to SRA Consultation on Handbook Amendments Relating to International<\/a><\/h2>\r\nResponse to SRA Consultation on Handbook Amendments Relating to International Practice <\/p>
<\/a><\/div><\/li>12\/03\/2013 - Response to the LSB Consultation on its Draft Business Plan 2013<\/a><\/h2>\r\nResponse to the LSB Consultation on its Draft Business Plan 2013<\/p>
<\/a><\/div><\/li>11\/03\/2013 - Minutes of Meeting held in February 2013<\/a><\/h2>\r\nMinutes of Meeting held in February 2013<\/p>
<\/a><\/div><\/li>22\/01\/2013 - Response to SRA Consultation on Co-operation Agreements<\/a><\/h2>\r\nResponse to SRA Consultation on Co-operation Agreements<\/p>
<\/a><\/div><\/li>15\/08\/2012 - Response to SRA consultation on The Future of Authorised Professional Firms<\/a><\/h2>\r\nResponse to SRA consultation on The Future of Authorised Professional Firms<\/p>
<\/a><\/div><\/li>12\/04\/2012 - Response to HMG Consultation on Introducing a Statutory Register of Lobbyists<\/a><\/h2>\r\nResponse to HMG Consultation on Introducing a Statutory Register of Lobbyists<\/p>
<\/a><\/div><\/li>14\/02\/2012 - Response to the SRA's<\/a><\/h2>\r\nResponse to the SRA's \"Regulation of International Practice\" Consultation<\/p>
<\/a><\/div><\/li>17\/01\/2012 - Response to SRA consultation \u201cSRA financial protection review\u201d<\/a><\/h2>\r\nResponse to SRA consultation \u201cSRA financial protection review\u201d<\/p>
<\/a><\/div><\/li>17\/01\/2012 - Minutes of the Meeting held in December 2011<\/a><\/h2>\r\nMinutes of the Meeting held in December 2011<\/p>
<\/a><\/div><\/li>26\/10\/2011 - Minutes from Meeting held in June 2011<\/a><\/h2>\r\nMinutes from Meeting held in June 2011<\/p>
<\/a><\/div><\/li>11\/07\/2011 - Response to SRA Consultation<\/a><\/h2>\r\nResponse to SRA Consultation \"Alternative Business Structures Fee Structure\"<\/p>
<\/a><\/div><\/li>26\/04\/2011 - Response to SRA Consultation<\/a><\/h2>\r\nResponse to SRA Consultation \"Future Client Financial Protection Arrangements\" <\/p>
<\/a><\/div><\/li>28\/02\/2011 - CLLS Response to the SRA Architecture of Change Part 2 Consultation<\/a><\/h2>\r\nCLLS Response to the SRA Architecture of Change Part 2 Consultation<\/p>
<\/a><\/div><\/li>14\/09\/2016 - Response to SRA Handbook Review: Looking to the future - flexibility and public protection<\/a><\/h2>\r\n<\/p>
<\/a><\/div><\/li>24\/03\/2016 - Response to the SRA Consultation on The Insurance Act 2015 and Consequential Changes to the Minimum Terms and Conditions of Professional Indemnity Insurance<\/a><\/h2>\r\n<\/p>
<\/a><\/div><\/li>10\/03\/2016 - Minutes of the Meeting of the CLLS Professional Rules & Regulation Committee Thursday 10th March 2016<\/a><\/h2>\r\n<\/p>
<\/a><\/div><\/li>17\/09\/2015 - CLLS Consultation Response - Professional Rules and Regulation Committee -Protecting Clients Financial Interests - 14 09 15<\/a><\/h2>\r\n<\/p>
<\/a><\/div><\/li>16\/07\/2015 - Response to the Law Society\u2019s discussion paper on the Legal Ombudsman\u2019s (LeO) case fee and funding<\/a><\/h2>\r\n<\/p>
<\/a><\/div><\/li>10\/06\/2015 - Response to the Consultation on the SRA Regulatory Reform Programme<\/a><\/h2>\r\n<\/p>
<\/a><\/div><\/li>18\/02\/2015 - Response to LSB Strategic Plan 2015-18 and Busines Plan 2015-16<\/a><\/h2>\r\n<\/p>
<\/a><\/div><\/li>11\/02\/2015 - Response to the SRA Separate Business Rule Consultation<\/a><\/h2>\r\n<\/p>
<\/a><\/div><\/li>28\/01\/2015 - Response to SRA Consultation on Proportionate Regulation: reporting accountant requirements<\/a><\/h2>\r\n<\/p>
<\/a><\/div><\/li>17\/12\/2014 - Response to Consultation on SRA's Regulation of Consumer Credit Activities<\/a><\/h2>\r\n<\/p>
<\/a><\/div><\/li>16\/12\/2014 - Response to the SRA's Consultation on Overseas Accounts Rules<\/a><\/h2>\r\n<\/p>
<\/a><\/div><\/li>03\/07\/2014 - Response to further SRA consultation on proposed changes to the registered European lawyer regime<\/a><\/h2>\r\nThe Committee responded to the SRA\u2019s further consultation on its proposed amendments to the Handbook. The response commented specifically on the proposal to apply the conduct provisions to solicitors within foreign firms in the same way as it was proposed they would apply to RELs within an EEP.\r\n\r\n<\/p>
<\/a><\/div><\/li>03\/07\/2014 - Response to SRA Consultation Paper on Multi-Disciplinary Practices<\/a><\/h2>\r\nThe consultation sought views on policy changes and associated amendments to the SRA Handbook which were aimed at achieving a proportionate regulatory framework for the authorisation and supervision of multi-disciplinary alternative business structures providing legal and non\u2013legal services. One driver behind the consultation was the SRA\u2019s concern that some of the rules in the SRA Handbook may have become an impediment to the effective licensing and regulation of some licensed bodies; and in particular, those rules that require all legal activity within an SRA authorised MDP to be SRA regulated. The CLLS response argued that if non-Reserved activity is not regulated when it is carried out by a non-Authorised person, then it need not be regulated when it is carried out by a better-qualified Authorised Person. The CLLS argued that this regulatory asymmetry means that solicitors, as Authorised Persons, are commercially disadvantaged in comparison with non-Authorised Persons, when doing the same tasks. The CLLS response raised some further concerns, (including the fact that the SRA\u2019s regulatory proposals in this area do not appear to be based on a comprehensive risk analysis of the field), and responded to the specific consultation questions. <\/p>
<\/a><\/div><\/li>23\/06\/2014 - Response to SRA consultation: Proportionate regulation - changes to minimum compulsory professional indemnity cover<\/a><\/h2>\r\nThis consultation paper contained proposals which the SRA stated were aimed at reducing the regulatory burden, providing targeted regulation and increasing competition. The proposals form part of a wider SRA review of the scope of cover under the Minimum Terms and Conditions. The CLLS submission in response supported in principle the idea of reducing the insurance costs burden in a manner which would allow firms to consider the appropriate level of cover they need (subject to a mandatory minimum). However, it expressed the view that the SRA needs to have consulted with the insurers before making specific proposals. It went on to state that the consultation paper had adduced no evidence that the proposals would in fact attract the costs reductions they are aiming for, and that a reduction in the minimum insurance requirement may well have no effect on the premiums charged by insurance companies. It stressed the need for the proposals to be evidence-based, and strongly recommended that any reform be delayed until the 2015 renewal.<\/p>
<\/a><\/div><\/li>20\/06\/2014 - Response to SRA consultation: Compensation Arrangements Review - the introduction of an eligibility criteria<\/a><\/h2>\r\nThe consultation invited views on the SRA\u2019s arrangements for compensating clients who suffer financial loss due to dishonesty, failure to account or civil liability of uninsured practitioners. The CLLS submission responded to the specific consultation questions. The submission also expressed, more generally, a concern that the SRA was consulting on an important topic that may have significant implications, in particular for consumers who do suffer losses, without explaining (i) clearly what has driven the proposal or (ii) providing supporting evidence, that only the SRA can provide, about the impact of the proposal.<\/p>
<\/a><\/div><\/li>19\/06\/2014 - Response to SRA consultation on Proportionate regulation: changes to reporting accounting requirements<\/a><\/h2>\r\nThis consultation paper contained two proposals: removal of the mandatory requirement that firms must submit an annual accountant's report to the SRA, and requiring COFAs to sign a declaration that they are satisfied that their respective firms are managing their client accounts in accordance with the SRA Account Rules. The proposals form part of an SRA programme to reform its regulatory regime \u201cto reduce unnecessary burdens and provide flexibility of approach to deliver good financial management\u201d. The submission responded to the specific consultation questions, and argued more generally that the consultation was premature, and that no changes should be made to the current reporting accountant regime until such time as the general review of the SRA accounts rules had been completed. <\/p>
<\/a><\/div><\/li>02\/06\/2014 - Response to SRA consultation \u201cAnnual keeping of the roll exercise\u201d<\/a><\/h2>\r\nThe consultation sought views on proposals to remove \u201cthe unnecessary and over burdensome process which requires solicitors who do not hold practising certificates to complete a yearly online application and pay a fee if they wish their name to remain on the roll of solicitors\u201d. The Submission broadly agreed with the consultation proposal to stop the annual updating process while keeping the power for the SRA to carry out updates when it thinks these are needed. It also broadly agreed with the proposal\u2019s expressed purpose, being \u2018to remove the unnecessary and burdensome process\u2019 involved with solicitors who do not have Practising Certificates (\u2018PCs\u2019) having to renew their roll applications annually. However, the Submission also raised concerns about the failure of the Consultation Paper to address the impact of remaining on the roll in any detail, including in relation to the status of undertakings given by non-practising solicitors who remain on the roll. It also raised concerns about some of the consequences that might arise were the annual updating process to be dispensed with. <\/p>
<\/a><\/div><\/li>02\/06\/2014 - Response to SRA consultation \u201cRed Tape Initiative: Residual client balances\u201d<\/a><\/h2>\r\nThe consultation sought views on proposals to amend the SRA Account Rules 2011 relating to how practitioners deal with client money they are unable to return to clients at the end of a matter (residual client balances), including the processes surrounding the withdrawal of such funds and the basis for distribution to charities. The Submission in response noted that the CLLS supports a proposal to increase the level at which practitioners can self-certify transfers of residual client balances, although it noted that there are differing views within the CLLS about the level at which SRA authorisation should be required. The submission also expressed concern that a significant increase in the self-certification level should be balanced by appropriate but proportional checks and balances. Furthermore, it agreed with the SRA\u2019s view that it ought not to restrict the charities to which residual balances should be transferred. <\/p>
<\/a><\/div><\/li>15\/04\/2014 - Proposed Changes in the Registered European Lawyer Regime<\/a><\/h2>\r\n<\/p>
<\/a><\/div><\/li>11\/02\/2014 - Response to LSB consultation on its draft 2014\/15 Business Plan<\/a><\/h2>\r\nThe response highlighted the amount that the City firms pay annually towards the regulatory and \u2018permitted purposes\u2019 costs of the legal sector, and expressed concern about the absence of the item \u201cMapping the Unregulated Market\u201d from the LSB\u2019s planned research programme. The response called on the LSB to answer a question that it had posed in an earlier consultation (\u201cEnhancing consumer protection, reducing regulatory restrictions\u201d) namely \u201cthere is a question about the relative balance of regulatory focus. Is the current balance of regulation right or are there areas where deregulation may be appropriate?\u2019\u201c\r\n\r\n\r\n<\/p>
<\/a><\/div><\/li>11\/02\/2014 - Response to SRA consultation: Proposal to increase the SRA's internal fining powers<\/a><\/h2>\r\nThe consultation paper invited views on the SRA\u2019s proposal to increase the current level of its fining powers for \u2018traditional\u2019 firms (i.e. non-ABS firms) from the current level of \u00a32,000, and to enable the SRA to agree (rather than impose) fines of a more significant amount with the regulated person concerned under its existing policy of agreeing the outcome of an investigation under its Regulatory Settlements Agreements policy. The response commented in detail on the consultation proposals, and questioned the consultation paper\u2019s presumption that the disciplinary regime that currently applies to ABS firms should be extended to all regulated firms. <\/p>
<\/a><\/div><\/li>26\/11\/2013 - Response to LSB consultation on Chairs of regulatory bodies: Consultation on an amendment to the Internal Governance Rules to require that the Chairs of the Boards of the regulatory arms of each applicable approved regulator be a lay person.<\/a><\/h2>\r\nThe consultation paper focussed on a proposed amendment to the Internal Governance Rules to require that the Chairs of the Boards of the regulatory arms of each \u201capplicable approved regulator\u201d be a lay person. In its response, the Committee raised a number of points, including that it saw \u201clittle merit in a rule change which necessarily narrows the field of candidates for the role of Chair of these bodies, where no evidence is given to show that the presence of a non-lay Chair has meaningfully impeded the independence of the regulator\u201d.<\/p>
<\/a><\/div><\/li>09\/09\/2013 - Review of the Legal Services Regulatory Framework: CLLS Submission to the Ministry of Justice<\/a><\/h2>\r\nReview of the Legal Services Regulatory Framework: CLLS Submission to the Ministry of Justice.<\/p>
<\/a><\/div><\/li>13\/08\/2013 - Response to Committee on Standards in Public Life Consultation on Lobbying Issues and Questions<\/a><\/h2>\r\n<\/p>
<\/a><\/div><\/li>24\/07\/2013 - Minutes of Meeting held in June 2013<\/a><\/h2>\r\nMinutes of Meeting held in June 2013<\/p>
<\/a><\/div><\/li>08\/07\/2013 - Response to SRA Consultation on New Overseas Rules<\/a><\/h2>\r\nResponse to SRA Consultation on New Overseas Rules<\/p>
<\/a><\/div><\/li>07\/07\/2013 - Response to SRA Consultation on New Overseas Rules \u2013 Comments on Annexes<\/a><\/h2>\r\nResponse to SRA Consultation on New Overseas Rules \u2013 Comments on Annexes<\/p>
<\/a><\/div><\/li>04\/07\/2013 - Response to SRA consultation Red Tape Initiative Phase 2: Removing unnecessary regulations and simplifying processes<\/a><\/h2>\r\nResponse to SRA consultation Red Tape Initiative Phase 2: Removing unnecessary regulations and simplifying processes<\/p>
<\/a><\/div><\/li>19\/04\/2013 - Response to SRA consultation: Indicative guidance on financial penalties<\/a><\/h2>\r\nResponse to SRA consultation: Indicative guidance on financial penalties<\/p>
<\/a><\/div><\/li>25\/03\/2013 - Response to SRA Consultation on Handbook Amendments Relating to International<\/a><\/h2>\r\nResponse to SRA Consultation on Handbook Amendments Relating to International Practice <\/p>
<\/a><\/div><\/li>12\/03\/2013 - Response to the LSB Consultation on its Draft Business Plan 2013<\/a><\/h2>\r\nResponse to the LSB Consultation on its Draft Business Plan 2013<\/p>
<\/a><\/div><\/li>11\/03\/2013 - Minutes of Meeting held in February 2013<\/a><\/h2>\r\nMinutes of Meeting held in February 2013<\/p>
<\/a><\/div><\/li>22\/01\/2013 - Response to SRA Consultation on Co-operation Agreements<\/a><\/h2>\r\nResponse to SRA Consultation on Co-operation Agreements<\/p>
<\/a><\/div><\/li>15\/08\/2012 - Response to SRA consultation on The Future of Authorised Professional Firms<\/a><\/h2>\r\nResponse to SRA consultation on The Future of Authorised Professional Firms<\/p>
<\/a><\/div><\/li>12\/04\/2012 - Response to HMG Consultation on Introducing a Statutory Register of Lobbyists<\/a><\/h2>\r\nResponse to HMG Consultation on Introducing a Statutory Register of Lobbyists<\/p>
<\/a><\/div><\/li>14\/02\/2012 - Response to the SRA's<\/a><\/h2>\r\nResponse to the SRA's \"Regulation of International Practice\" Consultation<\/p>
<\/a><\/div><\/li>17\/01\/2012 - Response to SRA consultation \u201cSRA financial protection review\u201d<\/a><\/h2>\r\nResponse to SRA consultation \u201cSRA financial protection review\u201d<\/p>
<\/a><\/div><\/li>17\/01\/2012 - Minutes of the Meeting held in December 2011<\/a><\/h2>\r\nMinutes of the Meeting held in December 2011<\/p>
<\/a><\/div><\/li>26\/10\/2011 - Minutes from Meeting held in June 2011<\/a><\/h2>\r\nMinutes from Meeting held in June 2011<\/p>
<\/a><\/div><\/li>11\/07\/2011 - Response to SRA Consultation<\/a><\/h2>\r\nResponse to SRA Consultation \"Alternative Business Structures Fee Structure\"<\/p>
<\/a><\/div><\/li>26\/04\/2011 - Response to SRA Consultation<\/a><\/h2>\r\nResponse to SRA Consultation \"Future Client Financial Protection Arrangements\" <\/p>
<\/a><\/div><\/li>28\/02\/2011 - CLLS Response to the SRA Architecture of Change Part 2 Consultation<\/a><\/h2>\r\nCLLS Response to the SRA Architecture of Change Part 2 Consultation<\/p>
<\/a><\/div><\/li>24\/03\/2016 - Response to the SRA Consultation on The Insurance Act 2015 and Consequential Changes to the Minimum Terms and Conditions of Professional Indemnity Insurance<\/a><\/h2>\r\n<\/p>
<\/a><\/div><\/li>10\/03\/2016 - Minutes of the Meeting of the CLLS Professional Rules & Regulation Committee Thursday 10th March 2016<\/a><\/h2>\r\n<\/p>
<\/a><\/div><\/li>17\/09\/2015 - CLLS Consultation Response - Professional Rules and Regulation Committee -Protecting Clients Financial Interests - 14 09 15<\/a><\/h2>\r\n<\/p>
<\/a><\/div><\/li>16\/07\/2015 - Response to the Law Society\u2019s discussion paper on the Legal Ombudsman\u2019s (LeO) case fee and funding<\/a><\/h2>\r\n<\/p>
<\/a><\/div><\/li>10\/06\/2015 - Response to the Consultation on the SRA Regulatory Reform Programme<\/a><\/h2>\r\n<\/p>
<\/a><\/div><\/li>18\/02\/2015 - Response to LSB Strategic Plan 2015-18 and Busines Plan 2015-16<\/a><\/h2>\r\n<\/p>
<\/a><\/div><\/li>11\/02\/2015 - Response to the SRA Separate Business Rule Consultation<\/a><\/h2>\r\n<\/p>
<\/a><\/div><\/li>28\/01\/2015 - Response to SRA Consultation on Proportionate Regulation: reporting accountant requirements<\/a><\/h2>\r\n<\/p>
<\/a><\/div><\/li>17\/12\/2014 - Response to Consultation on SRA's Regulation of Consumer Credit Activities<\/a><\/h2>\r\n<\/p>
<\/a><\/div><\/li>16\/12\/2014 - Response to the SRA's Consultation on Overseas Accounts Rules<\/a><\/h2>\r\n<\/p>
<\/a><\/div><\/li>03\/07\/2014 - Response to further SRA consultation on proposed changes to the registered European lawyer regime<\/a><\/h2>\r\nThe Committee responded to the SRA\u2019s further consultation on its proposed amendments to the Handbook. The response commented specifically on the proposal to apply the conduct provisions to solicitors within foreign firms in the same way as it was proposed they would apply to RELs within an EEP.\r\n\r\n<\/p>
<\/a><\/div><\/li>03\/07\/2014 - Response to SRA Consultation Paper on Multi-Disciplinary Practices<\/a><\/h2>\r\nThe consultation sought views on policy changes and associated amendments to the SRA Handbook which were aimed at achieving a proportionate regulatory framework for the authorisation and supervision of multi-disciplinary alternative business structures providing legal and non\u2013legal services. One driver behind the consultation was the SRA\u2019s concern that some of the rules in the SRA Handbook may have become an impediment to the effective licensing and regulation of some licensed bodies; and in particular, those rules that require all legal activity within an SRA authorised MDP to be SRA regulated. The CLLS response argued that if non-Reserved activity is not regulated when it is carried out by a non-Authorised person, then it need not be regulated when it is carried out by a better-qualified Authorised Person. The CLLS argued that this regulatory asymmetry means that solicitors, as Authorised Persons, are commercially disadvantaged in comparison with non-Authorised Persons, when doing the same tasks. The CLLS response raised some further concerns, (including the fact that the SRA\u2019s regulatory proposals in this area do not appear to be based on a comprehensive risk analysis of the field), and responded to the specific consultation questions. <\/p>
<\/a><\/div><\/li>23\/06\/2014 - Response to SRA consultation: Proportionate regulation - changes to minimum compulsory professional indemnity cover<\/a><\/h2>\r\nThis consultation paper contained proposals which the SRA stated were aimed at reducing the regulatory burden, providing targeted regulation and increasing competition. The proposals form part of a wider SRA review of the scope of cover under the Minimum Terms and Conditions. The CLLS submission in response supported in principle the idea of reducing the insurance costs burden in a manner which would allow firms to consider the appropriate level of cover they need (subject to a mandatory minimum). However, it expressed the view that the SRA needs to have consulted with the insurers before making specific proposals. It went on to state that the consultation paper had adduced no evidence that the proposals would in fact attract the costs reductions they are aiming for, and that a reduction in the minimum insurance requirement may well have no effect on the premiums charged by insurance companies. It stressed the need for the proposals to be evidence-based, and strongly recommended that any reform be delayed until the 2015 renewal.<\/p>
<\/a><\/div><\/li>20\/06\/2014 - Response to SRA consultation: Compensation Arrangements Review - the introduction of an eligibility criteria<\/a><\/h2>\r\nThe consultation invited views on the SRA\u2019s arrangements for compensating clients who suffer financial loss due to dishonesty, failure to account or civil liability of uninsured practitioners. The CLLS submission responded to the specific consultation questions. The submission also expressed, more generally, a concern that the SRA was consulting on an important topic that may have significant implications, in particular for consumers who do suffer losses, without explaining (i) clearly what has driven the proposal or (ii) providing supporting evidence, that only the SRA can provide, about the impact of the proposal.<\/p>
<\/a><\/div><\/li>19\/06\/2014 - Response to SRA consultation on Proportionate regulation: changes to reporting accounting requirements<\/a><\/h2>\r\nThis consultation paper contained two proposals: removal of the mandatory requirement that firms must submit an annual accountant's report to the SRA, and requiring COFAs to sign a declaration that they are satisfied that their respective firms are managing their client accounts in accordance with the SRA Account Rules. The proposals form part of an SRA programme to reform its regulatory regime \u201cto reduce unnecessary burdens and provide flexibility of approach to deliver good financial management\u201d. The submission responded to the specific consultation questions, and argued more generally that the consultation was premature, and that no changes should be made to the current reporting accountant regime until such time as the general review of the SRA accounts rules had been completed. <\/p>
<\/a><\/div><\/li>02\/06\/2014 - Response to SRA consultation \u201cAnnual keeping of the roll exercise\u201d<\/a><\/h2>\r\nThe consultation sought views on proposals to remove \u201cthe unnecessary and over burdensome process which requires solicitors who do not hold practising certificates to complete a yearly online application and pay a fee if they wish their name to remain on the roll of solicitors\u201d. The Submission broadly agreed with the consultation proposal to stop the annual updating process while keeping the power for the SRA to carry out updates when it thinks these are needed. It also broadly agreed with the proposal\u2019s expressed purpose, being \u2018to remove the unnecessary and burdensome process\u2019 involved with solicitors who do not have Practising Certificates (\u2018PCs\u2019) having to renew their roll applications annually. However, the Submission also raised concerns about the failure of the Consultation Paper to address the impact of remaining on the roll in any detail, including in relation to the status of undertakings given by non-practising solicitors who remain on the roll. It also raised concerns about some of the consequences that might arise were the annual updating process to be dispensed with. <\/p>
<\/a><\/div><\/li>02\/06\/2014 - Response to SRA consultation \u201cRed Tape Initiative: Residual client balances\u201d<\/a><\/h2>\r\nThe consultation sought views on proposals to amend the SRA Account Rules 2011 relating to how practitioners deal with client money they are unable to return to clients at the end of a matter (residual client balances), including the processes surrounding the withdrawal of such funds and the basis for distribution to charities. The Submission in response noted that the CLLS supports a proposal to increase the level at which practitioners can self-certify transfers of residual client balances, although it noted that there are differing views within the CLLS about the level at which SRA authorisation should be required. The submission also expressed concern that a significant increase in the self-certification level should be balanced by appropriate but proportional checks and balances. Furthermore, it agreed with the SRA\u2019s view that it ought not to restrict the charities to which residual balances should be transferred. <\/p>
<\/a><\/div><\/li>15\/04\/2014 - Proposed Changes in the Registered European Lawyer Regime<\/a><\/h2>\r\n<\/p>
<\/a><\/div><\/li>11\/02\/2014 - Response to LSB consultation on its draft 2014\/15 Business Plan<\/a><\/h2>\r\nThe response highlighted the amount that the City firms pay annually towards the regulatory and \u2018permitted purposes\u2019 costs of the legal sector, and expressed concern about the absence of the item \u201cMapping the Unregulated Market\u201d from the LSB\u2019s planned research programme. The response called on the LSB to answer a question that it had posed in an earlier consultation (\u201cEnhancing consumer protection, reducing regulatory restrictions\u201d) namely \u201cthere is a question about the relative balance of regulatory focus. Is the current balance of regulation right or are there areas where deregulation may be appropriate?\u2019\u201c\r\n\r\n\r\n<\/p>
<\/a><\/div><\/li>11\/02\/2014 - Response to SRA consultation: Proposal to increase the SRA's internal fining powers<\/a><\/h2>\r\nThe consultation paper invited views on the SRA\u2019s proposal to increase the current level of its fining powers for \u2018traditional\u2019 firms (i.e. non-ABS firms) from the current level of \u00a32,000, and to enable the SRA to agree (rather than impose) fines of a more significant amount with the regulated person concerned under its existing policy of agreeing the outcome of an investigation under its Regulatory Settlements Agreements policy. The response commented in detail on the consultation proposals, and questioned the consultation paper\u2019s presumption that the disciplinary regime that currently applies to ABS firms should be extended to all regulated firms. <\/p>
<\/a><\/div><\/li>26\/11\/2013 - Response to LSB consultation on Chairs of regulatory bodies: Consultation on an amendment to the Internal Governance Rules to require that the Chairs of the Boards of the regulatory arms of each applicable approved regulator be a lay person.<\/a><\/h2>\r\nThe consultation paper focussed on a proposed amendment to the Internal Governance Rules to require that the Chairs of the Boards of the regulatory arms of each \u201capplicable approved regulator\u201d be a lay person. In its response, the Committee raised a number of points, including that it saw \u201clittle merit in a rule change which necessarily narrows the field of candidates for the role of Chair of these bodies, where no evidence is given to show that the presence of a non-lay Chair has meaningfully impeded the independence of the regulator\u201d.<\/p>
<\/a><\/div><\/li>09\/09\/2013 - Review of the Legal Services Regulatory Framework: CLLS Submission to the Ministry of Justice<\/a><\/h2>\r\nReview of the Legal Services Regulatory Framework: CLLS Submission to the Ministry of Justice.<\/p>
<\/a><\/div><\/li>13\/08\/2013 - Response to Committee on Standards in Public Life Consultation on Lobbying Issues and Questions<\/a><\/h2>\r\n<\/p>
<\/a><\/div><\/li>24\/07\/2013 - Minutes of Meeting held in June 2013<\/a><\/h2>\r\nMinutes of Meeting held in June 2013<\/p>
<\/a><\/div><\/li>08\/07\/2013 - Response to SRA Consultation on New Overseas Rules<\/a><\/h2>\r\nResponse to SRA Consultation on New Overseas Rules<\/p>
<\/a><\/div><\/li>07\/07\/2013 - Response to SRA Consultation on New Overseas Rules \u2013 Comments on Annexes<\/a><\/h2>\r\nResponse to SRA Consultation on New Overseas Rules \u2013 Comments on Annexes<\/p>
<\/a><\/div><\/li>04\/07\/2013 - Response to SRA consultation Red Tape Initiative Phase 2: Removing unnecessary regulations and simplifying processes<\/a><\/h2>\r\nResponse to SRA consultation Red Tape Initiative Phase 2: Removing unnecessary regulations and simplifying processes<\/p>
<\/a><\/div><\/li>19\/04\/2013 - Response to SRA consultation: Indicative guidance on financial penalties<\/a><\/h2>\r\nResponse to SRA consultation: Indicative guidance on financial penalties<\/p>
<\/a><\/div><\/li>25\/03\/2013 - Response to SRA Consultation on Handbook Amendments Relating to International<\/a><\/h2>\r\nResponse to SRA Consultation on Handbook Amendments Relating to International Practice <\/p>
<\/a><\/div><\/li>12\/03\/2013 - Response to the LSB Consultation on its Draft Business Plan 2013<\/a><\/h2>\r\nResponse to the LSB Consultation on its Draft Business Plan 2013<\/p>
<\/a><\/div><\/li>11\/03\/2013 - Minutes of Meeting held in February 2013<\/a><\/h2>\r\nMinutes of Meeting held in February 2013<\/p>
<\/a><\/div><\/li>22\/01\/2013 - Response to SRA Consultation on Co-operation Agreements<\/a><\/h2>\r\nResponse to SRA Consultation on Co-operation Agreements<\/p>
<\/a><\/div><\/li>15\/08\/2012 - Response to SRA consultation on The Future of Authorised Professional Firms<\/a><\/h2>\r\nResponse to SRA consultation on The Future of Authorised Professional Firms<\/p>
<\/a><\/div><\/li>12\/04\/2012 - Response to HMG Consultation on Introducing a Statutory Register of Lobbyists<\/a><\/h2>\r\nResponse to HMG Consultation on Introducing a Statutory Register of Lobbyists<\/p>
<\/a><\/div><\/li>14\/02\/2012 - Response to the SRA's<\/a><\/h2>\r\nResponse to the SRA's \"Regulation of International Practice\" Consultation<\/p>
<\/a><\/div><\/li>17\/01\/2012 - Response to SRA consultation \u201cSRA financial protection review\u201d<\/a><\/h2>\r\nResponse to SRA consultation \u201cSRA financial protection review\u201d<\/p>
<\/a><\/div><\/li>17\/01\/2012 - Minutes of the Meeting held in December 2011<\/a><\/h2>\r\nMinutes of the Meeting held in December 2011<\/p>
<\/a><\/div><\/li>26\/10\/2011 - Minutes from Meeting held in June 2011<\/a><\/h2>\r\nMinutes from Meeting held in June 2011<\/p>
<\/a><\/div><\/li>11\/07\/2011 - Response to SRA Consultation<\/a><\/h2>\r\nResponse to SRA Consultation \"Alternative Business Structures Fee Structure\"<\/p>
<\/a><\/div><\/li>26\/04\/2011 - Response to SRA Consultation<\/a><\/h2>\r\nResponse to SRA Consultation \"Future Client Financial Protection Arrangements\" <\/p>
<\/a><\/div><\/li>28\/02\/2011 - CLLS Response to the SRA Architecture of Change Part 2 Consultation<\/a><\/h2>\r\nCLLS Response to the SRA Architecture of Change Part 2 Consultation<\/p>
<\/a><\/div><\/li>10\/03\/2016 - Minutes of the Meeting of the CLLS Professional Rules & Regulation Committee Thursday 10th March 2016<\/a><\/h2>\r\n<\/p>
<\/a><\/div><\/li>17\/09\/2015 - CLLS Consultation Response - Professional Rules and Regulation Committee -Protecting Clients Financial Interests - 14 09 15<\/a><\/h2>\r\n<\/p>
<\/a><\/div><\/li>16\/07\/2015 - Response to the Law Society\u2019s discussion paper on the Legal Ombudsman\u2019s (LeO) case fee and funding<\/a><\/h2>\r\n<\/p>
<\/a><\/div><\/li>10\/06\/2015 - Response to the Consultation on the SRA Regulatory Reform Programme<\/a><\/h2>\r\n<\/p>
<\/a><\/div><\/li>18\/02\/2015 - Response to LSB Strategic Plan 2015-18 and Busines Plan 2015-16<\/a><\/h2>\r\n<\/p>
<\/a><\/div><\/li>11\/02\/2015 - Response to the SRA Separate Business Rule Consultation<\/a><\/h2>\r\n<\/p>
<\/a><\/div><\/li>28\/01\/2015 - Response to SRA Consultation on Proportionate Regulation: reporting accountant requirements<\/a><\/h2>\r\n<\/p>
<\/a><\/div><\/li>17\/12\/2014 - Response to Consultation on SRA's Regulation of Consumer Credit Activities<\/a><\/h2>\r\n<\/p>
<\/a><\/div><\/li>16\/12\/2014 - Response to the SRA's Consultation on Overseas Accounts Rules<\/a><\/h2>\r\n<\/p>
<\/a><\/div><\/li>03\/07\/2014 - Response to further SRA consultation on proposed changes to the registered European lawyer regime<\/a><\/h2>\r\nThe Committee responded to the SRA\u2019s further consultation on its proposed amendments to the Handbook. The response commented specifically on the proposal to apply the conduct provisions to solicitors within foreign firms in the same way as it was proposed they would apply to RELs within an EEP.\r\n\r\n<\/p>
<\/a><\/div><\/li>03\/07\/2014 - Response to SRA Consultation Paper on Multi-Disciplinary Practices<\/a><\/h2>\r\nThe consultation sought views on policy changes and associated amendments to the SRA Handbook which were aimed at achieving a proportionate regulatory framework for the authorisation and supervision of multi-disciplinary alternative business structures providing legal and non\u2013legal services. One driver behind the consultation was the SRA\u2019s concern that some of the rules in the SRA Handbook may have become an impediment to the effective licensing and regulation of some licensed bodies; and in particular, those rules that require all legal activity within an SRA authorised MDP to be SRA regulated. The CLLS response argued that if non-Reserved activity is not regulated when it is carried out by a non-Authorised person, then it need not be regulated when it is carried out by a better-qualified Authorised Person. The CLLS argued that this regulatory asymmetry means that solicitors, as Authorised Persons, are commercially disadvantaged in comparison with non-Authorised Persons, when doing the same tasks. The CLLS response raised some further concerns, (including the fact that the SRA\u2019s regulatory proposals in this area do not appear to be based on a comprehensive risk analysis of the field), and responded to the specific consultation questions. <\/p>
<\/a><\/div><\/li>23\/06\/2014 - Response to SRA consultation: Proportionate regulation - changes to minimum compulsory professional indemnity cover<\/a><\/h2>\r\nThis consultation paper contained proposals which the SRA stated were aimed at reducing the regulatory burden, providing targeted regulation and increasing competition. The proposals form part of a wider SRA review of the scope of cover under the Minimum Terms and Conditions. The CLLS submission in response supported in principle the idea of reducing the insurance costs burden in a manner which would allow firms to consider the appropriate level of cover they need (subject to a mandatory minimum). However, it expressed the view that the SRA needs to have consulted with the insurers before making specific proposals. It went on to state that the consultation paper had adduced no evidence that the proposals would in fact attract the costs reductions they are aiming for, and that a reduction in the minimum insurance requirement may well have no effect on the premiums charged by insurance companies. It stressed the need for the proposals to be evidence-based, and strongly recommended that any reform be delayed until the 2015 renewal.<\/p>
<\/a><\/div><\/li>20\/06\/2014 - Response to SRA consultation: Compensation Arrangements Review - the introduction of an eligibility criteria<\/a><\/h2>\r\nThe consultation invited views on the SRA\u2019s arrangements for compensating clients who suffer financial loss due to dishonesty, failure to account or civil liability of uninsured practitioners. The CLLS submission responded to the specific consultation questions. The submission also expressed, more generally, a concern that the SRA was consulting on an important topic that may have significant implications, in particular for consumers who do suffer losses, without explaining (i) clearly what has driven the proposal or (ii) providing supporting evidence, that only the SRA can provide, about the impact of the proposal.<\/p>
<\/a><\/div><\/li>19\/06\/2014 - Response to SRA consultation on Proportionate regulation: changes to reporting accounting requirements<\/a><\/h2>\r\nThis consultation paper contained two proposals: removal of the mandatory requirement that firms must submit an annual accountant's report to the SRA, and requiring COFAs to sign a declaration that they are satisfied that their respective firms are managing their client accounts in accordance with the SRA Account Rules. The proposals form part of an SRA programme to reform its regulatory regime \u201cto reduce unnecessary burdens and provide flexibility of approach to deliver good financial management\u201d. The submission responded to the specific consultation questions, and argued more generally that the consultation was premature, and that no changes should be made to the current reporting accountant regime until such time as the general review of the SRA accounts rules had been completed. <\/p>
<\/a><\/div><\/li>02\/06\/2014 - Response to SRA consultation \u201cAnnual keeping of the roll exercise\u201d<\/a><\/h2>\r\nThe consultation sought views on proposals to remove \u201cthe unnecessary and over burdensome process which requires solicitors who do not hold practising certificates to complete a yearly online application and pay a fee if they wish their name to remain on the roll of solicitors\u201d. The Submission broadly agreed with the consultation proposal to stop the annual updating process while keeping the power for the SRA to carry out updates when it thinks these are needed. It also broadly agreed with the proposal\u2019s expressed purpose, being \u2018to remove the unnecessary and burdensome process\u2019 involved with solicitors who do not have Practising Certificates (\u2018PCs\u2019) having to renew their roll applications annually. However, the Submission also raised concerns about the failure of the Consultation Paper to address the impact of remaining on the roll in any detail, including in relation to the status of undertakings given by non-practising solicitors who remain on the roll. It also raised concerns about some of the consequences that might arise were the annual updating process to be dispensed with. <\/p>
<\/a><\/div><\/li>02\/06\/2014 - Response to SRA consultation \u201cRed Tape Initiative: Residual client balances\u201d<\/a><\/h2>\r\nThe consultation sought views on proposals to amend the SRA Account Rules 2011 relating to how practitioners deal with client money they are unable to return to clients at the end of a matter (residual client balances), including the processes surrounding the withdrawal of such funds and the basis for distribution to charities. The Submission in response noted that the CLLS supports a proposal to increase the level at which practitioners can self-certify transfers of residual client balances, although it noted that there are differing views within the CLLS about the level at which SRA authorisation should be required. The submission also expressed concern that a significant increase in the self-certification level should be balanced by appropriate but proportional checks and balances. Furthermore, it agreed with the SRA\u2019s view that it ought not to restrict the charities to which residual balances should be transferred. <\/p>
<\/a><\/div><\/li>15\/04\/2014 - Proposed Changes in the Registered European Lawyer Regime<\/a><\/h2>\r\n<\/p>
<\/a><\/div><\/li>11\/02\/2014 - Response to LSB consultation on its draft 2014\/15 Business Plan<\/a><\/h2>\r\nThe response highlighted the amount that the City firms pay annually towards the regulatory and \u2018permitted purposes\u2019 costs of the legal sector, and expressed concern about the absence of the item \u201cMapping the Unregulated Market\u201d from the LSB\u2019s planned research programme. The response called on the LSB to answer a question that it had posed in an earlier consultation (\u201cEnhancing consumer protection, reducing regulatory restrictions\u201d) namely \u201cthere is a question about the relative balance of regulatory focus. Is the current balance of regulation right or are there areas where deregulation may be appropriate?\u2019\u201c\r\n\r\n\r\n<\/p>
<\/a><\/div><\/li>11\/02\/2014 - Response to SRA consultation: Proposal to increase the SRA's internal fining powers<\/a><\/h2>\r\nThe consultation paper invited views on the SRA\u2019s proposal to increase the current level of its fining powers for \u2018traditional\u2019 firms (i.e. non-ABS firms) from the current level of \u00a32,000, and to enable the SRA to agree (rather than impose) fines of a more significant amount with the regulated person concerned under its existing policy of agreeing the outcome of an investigation under its Regulatory Settlements Agreements policy. The response commented in detail on the consultation proposals, and questioned the consultation paper\u2019s presumption that the disciplinary regime that currently applies to ABS firms should be extended to all regulated firms. <\/p>
<\/a><\/div><\/li>26\/11\/2013 - Response to LSB consultation on Chairs of regulatory bodies: Consultation on an amendment to the Internal Governance Rules to require that the Chairs of the Boards of the regulatory arms of each applicable approved regulator be a lay person.<\/a><\/h2>\r\nThe consultation paper focussed on a proposed amendment to the Internal Governance Rules to require that the Chairs of the Boards of the regulatory arms of each \u201capplicable approved regulator\u201d be a lay person. In its response, the Committee raised a number of points, including that it saw \u201clittle merit in a rule change which necessarily narrows the field of candidates for the role of Chair of these bodies, where no evidence is given to show that the presence of a non-lay Chair has meaningfully impeded the independence of the regulator\u201d.<\/p>
<\/a><\/div><\/li>09\/09\/2013 - Review of the Legal Services Regulatory Framework: CLLS Submission to the Ministry of Justice<\/a><\/h2>\r\nReview of the Legal Services Regulatory Framework: CLLS Submission to the Ministry of Justice.<\/p>
<\/a><\/div><\/li>13\/08\/2013 - Response to Committee on Standards in Public Life Consultation on Lobbying Issues and Questions<\/a><\/h2>\r\n<\/p>
<\/a><\/div><\/li>24\/07\/2013 - Minutes of Meeting held in June 2013<\/a><\/h2>\r\nMinutes of Meeting held in June 2013<\/p>
<\/a><\/div><\/li>08\/07\/2013 - Response to SRA Consultation on New Overseas Rules<\/a><\/h2>\r\nResponse to SRA Consultation on New Overseas Rules<\/p>
<\/a><\/div><\/li>07\/07\/2013 - Response to SRA Consultation on New Overseas Rules \u2013 Comments on Annexes<\/a><\/h2>\r\nResponse to SRA Consultation on New Overseas Rules \u2013 Comments on Annexes<\/p>
<\/a><\/div><\/li>04\/07\/2013 - Response to SRA consultation Red Tape Initiative Phase 2: Removing unnecessary regulations and simplifying processes<\/a><\/h2>\r\nResponse to SRA consultation Red Tape Initiative Phase 2: Removing unnecessary regulations and simplifying processes<\/p>
<\/a><\/div><\/li>19\/04\/2013 - Response to SRA consultation: Indicative guidance on financial penalties<\/a><\/h2>\r\nResponse to SRA consultation: Indicative guidance on financial penalties<\/p>
<\/a><\/div><\/li>25\/03\/2013 - Response to SRA Consultation on Handbook Amendments Relating to International<\/a><\/h2>\r\nResponse to SRA Consultation on Handbook Amendments Relating to International Practice <\/p>
<\/a><\/div><\/li>12\/03\/2013 - Response to the LSB Consultation on its Draft Business Plan 2013<\/a><\/h2>\r\nResponse to the LSB Consultation on its Draft Business Plan 2013<\/p>
<\/a><\/div><\/li>11\/03\/2013 - Minutes of Meeting held in February 2013<\/a><\/h2>\r\nMinutes of Meeting held in February 2013<\/p>
<\/a><\/div><\/li>22\/01\/2013 - Response to SRA Consultation on Co-operation Agreements<\/a><\/h2>\r\nResponse to SRA Consultation on Co-operation Agreements<\/p>
<\/a><\/div><\/li>15\/08\/2012 - Response to SRA consultation on The Future of Authorised Professional Firms<\/a><\/h2>\r\nResponse to SRA consultation on The Future of Authorised Professional Firms<\/p>
<\/a><\/div><\/li>12\/04\/2012 - Response to HMG Consultation on Introducing a Statutory Register of Lobbyists<\/a><\/h2>\r\nResponse to HMG Consultation on Introducing a Statutory Register of Lobbyists<\/p>
<\/a><\/div><\/li>14\/02\/2012 - Response to the SRA's<\/a><\/h2>\r\nResponse to the SRA's \"Regulation of International Practice\" Consultation<\/p>
<\/a><\/div><\/li>17\/01\/2012 - Response to SRA consultation \u201cSRA financial protection review\u201d<\/a><\/h2>\r\nResponse to SRA consultation \u201cSRA financial protection review\u201d<\/p>
<\/a><\/div><\/li>17\/01\/2012 - Minutes of the Meeting held in December 2011<\/a><\/h2>\r\nMinutes of the Meeting held in December 2011<\/p>
<\/a><\/div><\/li>26\/10\/2011 - Minutes from Meeting held in June 2011<\/a><\/h2>\r\nMinutes from Meeting held in June 2011<\/p>
<\/a><\/div><\/li>11\/07\/2011 - Response to SRA Consultation<\/a><\/h2>\r\nResponse to SRA Consultation \"Alternative Business Structures Fee Structure\"<\/p>
<\/a><\/div><\/li>26\/04\/2011 - Response to SRA Consultation<\/a><\/h2>\r\nResponse to SRA Consultation \"Future Client Financial Protection Arrangements\" <\/p>
<\/a><\/div><\/li>28\/02\/2011 - CLLS Response to the SRA Architecture of Change Part 2 Consultation<\/a><\/h2>\r\nCLLS Response to the SRA Architecture of Change Part 2 Consultation<\/p>
<\/a><\/div><\/li>17\/09\/2015 - CLLS Consultation Response - Professional Rules and Regulation Committee -Protecting Clients Financial Interests - 14 09 15<\/a><\/h2>\r\n<\/p>
<\/a><\/div><\/li>16\/07\/2015 - Response to the Law Society\u2019s discussion paper on the Legal Ombudsman\u2019s (LeO) case fee and funding<\/a><\/h2>\r\n<\/p>
<\/a><\/div><\/li>10\/06\/2015 - Response to the Consultation on the SRA Regulatory Reform Programme<\/a><\/h2>\r\n<\/p>
<\/a><\/div><\/li>18\/02\/2015 - Response to LSB Strategic Plan 2015-18 and Busines Plan 2015-16<\/a><\/h2>\r\n<\/p>
<\/a><\/div><\/li>11\/02\/2015 - Response to the SRA Separate Business Rule Consultation<\/a><\/h2>\r\n<\/p>
<\/a><\/div><\/li>28\/01\/2015 - Response to SRA Consultation on Proportionate Regulation: reporting accountant requirements<\/a><\/h2>\r\n<\/p>
<\/a><\/div><\/li>17\/12\/2014 - Response to Consultation on SRA's Regulation of Consumer Credit Activities<\/a><\/h2>\r\n<\/p>
<\/a><\/div><\/li>16\/12\/2014 - Response to the SRA's Consultation on Overseas Accounts Rules<\/a><\/h2>\r\n<\/p>
<\/a><\/div><\/li>03\/07\/2014 - Response to further SRA consultation on proposed changes to the registered European lawyer regime<\/a><\/h2>\r\nThe Committee responded to the SRA\u2019s further consultation on its proposed amendments to the Handbook. The response commented specifically on the proposal to apply the conduct provisions to solicitors within foreign firms in the same way as it was proposed they would apply to RELs within an EEP.\r\n\r\n<\/p>
<\/a><\/div><\/li>03\/07\/2014 - Response to SRA Consultation Paper on Multi-Disciplinary Practices<\/a><\/h2>\r\nThe consultation sought views on policy changes and associated amendments to the SRA Handbook which were aimed at achieving a proportionate regulatory framework for the authorisation and supervision of multi-disciplinary alternative business structures providing legal and non\u2013legal services. One driver behind the consultation was the SRA\u2019s concern that some of the rules in the SRA Handbook may have become an impediment to the effective licensing and regulation of some licensed bodies; and in particular, those rules that require all legal activity within an SRA authorised MDP to be SRA regulated. The CLLS response argued that if non-Reserved activity is not regulated when it is carried out by a non-Authorised person, then it need not be regulated when it is carried out by a better-qualified Authorised Person. The CLLS argued that this regulatory asymmetry means that solicitors, as Authorised Persons, are commercially disadvantaged in comparison with non-Authorised Persons, when doing the same tasks. The CLLS response raised some further concerns, (including the fact that the SRA\u2019s regulatory proposals in this area do not appear to be based on a comprehensive risk analysis of the field), and responded to the specific consultation questions. <\/p>
<\/a><\/div><\/li>23\/06\/2014 - Response to SRA consultation: Proportionate regulation - changes to minimum compulsory professional indemnity cover<\/a><\/h2>\r\nThis consultation paper contained proposals which the SRA stated were aimed at reducing the regulatory burden, providing targeted regulation and increasing competition. The proposals form part of a wider SRA review of the scope of cover under the Minimum Terms and Conditions. The CLLS submission in response supported in principle the idea of reducing the insurance costs burden in a manner which would allow firms to consider the appropriate level of cover they need (subject to a mandatory minimum). However, it expressed the view that the SRA needs to have consulted with the insurers before making specific proposals. It went on to state that the consultation paper had adduced no evidence that the proposals would in fact attract the costs reductions they are aiming for, and that a reduction in the minimum insurance requirement may well have no effect on the premiums charged by insurance companies. It stressed the need for the proposals to be evidence-based, and strongly recommended that any reform be delayed until the 2015 renewal.<\/p>
<\/a><\/div><\/li>20\/06\/2014 - Response to SRA consultation: Compensation Arrangements Review - the introduction of an eligibility criteria<\/a><\/h2>\r\nThe consultation invited views on the SRA\u2019s arrangements for compensating clients who suffer financial loss due to dishonesty, failure to account or civil liability of uninsured practitioners. The CLLS submission responded to the specific consultation questions. The submission also expressed, more generally, a concern that the SRA was consulting on an important topic that may have significant implications, in particular for consumers who do suffer losses, without explaining (i) clearly what has driven the proposal or (ii) providing supporting evidence, that only the SRA can provide, about the impact of the proposal.<\/p>
<\/a><\/div><\/li>19\/06\/2014 - Response to SRA consultation on Proportionate regulation: changes to reporting accounting requirements<\/a><\/h2>\r\nThis consultation paper contained two proposals: removal of the mandatory requirement that firms must submit an annual accountant's report to the SRA, and requiring COFAs to sign a declaration that they are satisfied that their respective firms are managing their client accounts in accordance with the SRA Account Rules. The proposals form part of an SRA programme to reform its regulatory regime \u201cto reduce unnecessary burdens and provide flexibility of approach to deliver good financial management\u201d. The submission responded to the specific consultation questions, and argued more generally that the consultation was premature, and that no changes should be made to the current reporting accountant regime until such time as the general review of the SRA accounts rules had been completed. <\/p>
<\/a><\/div><\/li>02\/06\/2014 - Response to SRA consultation \u201cAnnual keeping of the roll exercise\u201d<\/a><\/h2>\r\nThe consultation sought views on proposals to remove \u201cthe unnecessary and over burdensome process which requires solicitors who do not hold practising certificates to complete a yearly online application and pay a fee if they wish their name to remain on the roll of solicitors\u201d. The Submission broadly agreed with the consultation proposal to stop the annual updating process while keeping the power for the SRA to carry out updates when it thinks these are needed. It also broadly agreed with the proposal\u2019s expressed purpose, being \u2018to remove the unnecessary and burdensome process\u2019 involved with solicitors who do not have Practising Certificates (\u2018PCs\u2019) having to renew their roll applications annually. However, the Submission also raised concerns about the failure of the Consultation Paper to address the impact of remaining on the roll in any detail, including in relation to the status of undertakings given by non-practising solicitors who remain on the roll. It also raised concerns about some of the consequences that might arise were the annual updating process to be dispensed with. <\/p>
<\/a><\/div><\/li>02\/06\/2014 - Response to SRA consultation \u201cRed Tape Initiative: Residual client balances\u201d<\/a><\/h2>\r\nThe consultation sought views on proposals to amend the SRA Account Rules 2011 relating to how practitioners deal with client money they are unable to return to clients at the end of a matter (residual client balances), including the processes surrounding the withdrawal of such funds and the basis for distribution to charities. The Submission in response noted that the CLLS supports a proposal to increase the level at which practitioners can self-certify transfers of residual client balances, although it noted that there are differing views within the CLLS about the level at which SRA authorisation should be required. The submission also expressed concern that a significant increase in the self-certification level should be balanced by appropriate but proportional checks and balances. Furthermore, it agreed with the SRA\u2019s view that it ought not to restrict the charities to which residual balances should be transferred. <\/p>
<\/a><\/div><\/li>15\/04\/2014 - Proposed Changes in the Registered European Lawyer Regime<\/a><\/h2>\r\n<\/p>
<\/a><\/div><\/li>11\/02\/2014 - Response to LSB consultation on its draft 2014\/15 Business Plan<\/a><\/h2>\r\nThe response highlighted the amount that the City firms pay annually towards the regulatory and \u2018permitted purposes\u2019 costs of the legal sector, and expressed concern about the absence of the item \u201cMapping the Unregulated Market\u201d from the LSB\u2019s planned research programme. The response called on the LSB to answer a question that it had posed in an earlier consultation (\u201cEnhancing consumer protection, reducing regulatory restrictions\u201d) namely \u201cthere is a question about the relative balance of regulatory focus. Is the current balance of regulation right or are there areas where deregulation may be appropriate?\u2019\u201c\r\n\r\n\r\n<\/p>
<\/a><\/div><\/li>11\/02\/2014 - Response to SRA consultation: Proposal to increase the SRA's internal fining powers<\/a><\/h2>\r\nThe consultation paper invited views on the SRA\u2019s proposal to increase the current level of its fining powers for \u2018traditional\u2019 firms (i.e. non-ABS firms) from the current level of \u00a32,000, and to enable the SRA to agree (rather than impose) fines of a more significant amount with the regulated person concerned under its existing policy of agreeing the outcome of an investigation under its Regulatory Settlements Agreements policy. The response commented in detail on the consultation proposals, and questioned the consultation paper\u2019s presumption that the disciplinary regime that currently applies to ABS firms should be extended to all regulated firms. <\/p>
<\/a><\/div><\/li>26\/11\/2013 - Response to LSB consultation on Chairs of regulatory bodies: Consultation on an amendment to the Internal Governance Rules to require that the Chairs of the Boards of the regulatory arms of each applicable approved regulator be a lay person.<\/a><\/h2>\r\nThe consultation paper focussed on a proposed amendment to the Internal Governance Rules to require that the Chairs of the Boards of the regulatory arms of each \u201capplicable approved regulator\u201d be a lay person. In its response, the Committee raised a number of points, including that it saw \u201clittle merit in a rule change which necessarily narrows the field of candidates for the role of Chair of these bodies, where no evidence is given to show that the presence of a non-lay Chair has meaningfully impeded the independence of the regulator\u201d.<\/p>
<\/a><\/div><\/li>09\/09\/2013 - Review of the Legal Services Regulatory Framework: CLLS Submission to the Ministry of Justice<\/a><\/h2>\r\nReview of the Legal Services Regulatory Framework: CLLS Submission to the Ministry of Justice.<\/p>
<\/a><\/div><\/li>13\/08\/2013 - Response to Committee on Standards in Public Life Consultation on Lobbying Issues and Questions<\/a><\/h2>\r\n<\/p>
<\/a><\/div><\/li>24\/07\/2013 - Minutes of Meeting held in June 2013<\/a><\/h2>\r\nMinutes of Meeting held in June 2013<\/p>
<\/a><\/div><\/li>08\/07\/2013 - Response to SRA Consultation on New Overseas Rules<\/a><\/h2>\r\nResponse to SRA Consultation on New Overseas Rules<\/p>
<\/a><\/div><\/li>07\/07\/2013 - Response to SRA Consultation on New Overseas Rules \u2013 Comments on Annexes<\/a><\/h2>\r\nResponse to SRA Consultation on New Overseas Rules \u2013 Comments on Annexes<\/p>
<\/a><\/div><\/li>04\/07\/2013 - Response to SRA consultation Red Tape Initiative Phase 2: Removing unnecessary regulations and simplifying processes<\/a><\/h2>\r\nResponse to SRA consultation Red Tape Initiative Phase 2: Removing unnecessary regulations and simplifying processes<\/p>
<\/a><\/div><\/li>19\/04\/2013 - Response to SRA consultation: Indicative guidance on financial penalties<\/a><\/h2>\r\nResponse to SRA consultation: Indicative guidance on financial penalties<\/p>
<\/a><\/div><\/li>25\/03\/2013 - Response to SRA Consultation on Handbook Amendments Relating to International<\/a><\/h2>\r\nResponse to SRA Consultation on Handbook Amendments Relating to International Practice <\/p>
<\/a><\/div><\/li>12\/03\/2013 - Response to the LSB Consultation on its Draft Business Plan 2013<\/a><\/h2>\r\nResponse to the LSB Consultation on its Draft Business Plan 2013<\/p>
<\/a><\/div><\/li>11\/03\/2013 - Minutes of Meeting held in February 2013<\/a><\/h2>\r\nMinutes of Meeting held in February 2013<\/p>
<\/a><\/div><\/li>22\/01\/2013 - Response to SRA Consultation on Co-operation Agreements<\/a><\/h2>\r\nResponse to SRA Consultation on Co-operation Agreements<\/p>
<\/a><\/div><\/li>15\/08\/2012 - Response to SRA consultation on The Future of Authorised Professional Firms<\/a><\/h2>\r\nResponse to SRA consultation on The Future of Authorised Professional Firms<\/p>
<\/a><\/div><\/li>12\/04\/2012 - Response to HMG Consultation on Introducing a Statutory Register of Lobbyists<\/a><\/h2>\r\nResponse to HMG Consultation on Introducing a Statutory Register of Lobbyists<\/p>
<\/a><\/div><\/li>14\/02\/2012 - Response to the SRA's<\/a><\/h2>\r\nResponse to the SRA's \"Regulation of International Practice\" Consultation<\/p>
<\/a><\/div><\/li>17\/01\/2012 - Response to SRA consultation \u201cSRA financial protection review\u201d<\/a><\/h2>\r\nResponse to SRA consultation \u201cSRA financial protection review\u201d<\/p>
<\/a><\/div><\/li>17\/01\/2012 - Minutes of the Meeting held in December 2011<\/a><\/h2>\r\nMinutes of the Meeting held in December 2011<\/p>
<\/a><\/div><\/li>26\/10\/2011 - Minutes from Meeting held in June 2011<\/a><\/h2>\r\nMinutes from Meeting held in June 2011<\/p>
<\/a><\/div><\/li>11\/07\/2011 - Response to SRA Consultation<\/a><\/h2>\r\nResponse to SRA Consultation \"Alternative Business Structures Fee Structure\"<\/p>
<\/a><\/div><\/li>26\/04\/2011 - Response to SRA Consultation<\/a><\/h2>\r\nResponse to SRA Consultation \"Future Client Financial Protection Arrangements\" <\/p>
<\/a><\/div><\/li>28\/02\/2011 - CLLS Response to the SRA Architecture of Change Part 2 Consultation<\/a><\/h2>\r\nCLLS Response to the SRA Architecture of Change Part 2 Consultation<\/p>
<\/a><\/div><\/li>16\/07\/2015 - Response to the Law Society\u2019s discussion paper on the Legal Ombudsman\u2019s (LeO) case fee and funding<\/a><\/h2>\r\n<\/p>
<\/a><\/div><\/li>10\/06\/2015 - Response to the Consultation on the SRA Regulatory Reform Programme<\/a><\/h2>\r\n<\/p>
<\/a><\/div><\/li>18\/02\/2015 - Response to LSB Strategic Plan 2015-18 and Busines Plan 2015-16<\/a><\/h2>\r\n<\/p>
<\/a><\/div><\/li>11\/02\/2015 - Response to the SRA Separate Business Rule Consultation<\/a><\/h2>\r\n<\/p>
<\/a><\/div><\/li>28\/01\/2015 - Response to SRA Consultation on Proportionate Regulation: reporting accountant requirements<\/a><\/h2>\r\n<\/p>
<\/a><\/div><\/li>17\/12\/2014 - Response to Consultation on SRA's Regulation of Consumer Credit Activities<\/a><\/h2>\r\n<\/p>
<\/a><\/div><\/li>16\/12\/2014 - Response to the SRA's Consultation on Overseas Accounts Rules<\/a><\/h2>\r\n<\/p>
<\/a><\/div><\/li>03\/07\/2014 - Response to further SRA consultation on proposed changes to the registered European lawyer regime<\/a><\/h2>\r\nThe Committee responded to the SRA\u2019s further consultation on its proposed amendments to the Handbook. The response commented specifically on the proposal to apply the conduct provisions to solicitors within foreign firms in the same way as it was proposed they would apply to RELs within an EEP.\r\n\r\n<\/p>
<\/a><\/div><\/li>03\/07\/2014 - Response to SRA Consultation Paper on Multi-Disciplinary Practices<\/a><\/h2>\r\nThe consultation sought views on policy changes and associated amendments to the SRA Handbook which were aimed at achieving a proportionate regulatory framework for the authorisation and supervision of multi-disciplinary alternative business structures providing legal and non\u2013legal services. One driver behind the consultation was the SRA\u2019s concern that some of the rules in the SRA Handbook may have become an impediment to the effective licensing and regulation of some licensed bodies; and in particular, those rules that require all legal activity within an SRA authorised MDP to be SRA regulated. The CLLS response argued that if non-Reserved activity is not regulated when it is carried out by a non-Authorised person, then it need not be regulated when it is carried out by a better-qualified Authorised Person. The CLLS argued that this regulatory asymmetry means that solicitors, as Authorised Persons, are commercially disadvantaged in comparison with non-Authorised Persons, when doing the same tasks. The CLLS response raised some further concerns, (including the fact that the SRA\u2019s regulatory proposals in this area do not appear to be based on a comprehensive risk analysis of the field), and responded to the specific consultation questions. <\/p>
<\/a><\/div><\/li>23\/06\/2014 - Response to SRA consultation: Proportionate regulation - changes to minimum compulsory professional indemnity cover<\/a><\/h2>\r\nThis consultation paper contained proposals which the SRA stated were aimed at reducing the regulatory burden, providing targeted regulation and increasing competition. The proposals form part of a wider SRA review of the scope of cover under the Minimum Terms and Conditions. The CLLS submission in response supported in principle the idea of reducing the insurance costs burden in a manner which would allow firms to consider the appropriate level of cover they need (subject to a mandatory minimum). However, it expressed the view that the SRA needs to have consulted with the insurers before making specific proposals. It went on to state that the consultation paper had adduced no evidence that the proposals would in fact attract the costs reductions they are aiming for, and that a reduction in the minimum insurance requirement may well have no effect on the premiums charged by insurance companies. It stressed the need for the proposals to be evidence-based, and strongly recommended that any reform be delayed until the 2015 renewal.<\/p>
<\/a><\/div><\/li>20\/06\/2014 - Response to SRA consultation: Compensation Arrangements Review - the introduction of an eligibility criteria<\/a><\/h2>\r\nThe consultation invited views on the SRA\u2019s arrangements for compensating clients who suffer financial loss due to dishonesty, failure to account or civil liability of uninsured practitioners. The CLLS submission responded to the specific consultation questions. The submission also expressed, more generally, a concern that the SRA was consulting on an important topic that may have significant implications, in particular for consumers who do suffer losses, without explaining (i) clearly what has driven the proposal or (ii) providing supporting evidence, that only the SRA can provide, about the impact of the proposal.<\/p>
<\/a><\/div><\/li>19\/06\/2014 - Response to SRA consultation on Proportionate regulation: changes to reporting accounting requirements<\/a><\/h2>\r\nThis consultation paper contained two proposals: removal of the mandatory requirement that firms must submit an annual accountant's report to the SRA, and requiring COFAs to sign a declaration that they are satisfied that their respective firms are managing their client accounts in accordance with the SRA Account Rules. The proposals form part of an SRA programme to reform its regulatory regime \u201cto reduce unnecessary burdens and provide flexibility of approach to deliver good financial management\u201d. The submission responded to the specific consultation questions, and argued more generally that the consultation was premature, and that no changes should be made to the current reporting accountant regime until such time as the general review of the SRA accounts rules had been completed. <\/p>
<\/a><\/div><\/li>02\/06\/2014 - Response to SRA consultation \u201cAnnual keeping of the roll exercise\u201d<\/a><\/h2>\r\nThe consultation sought views on proposals to remove \u201cthe unnecessary and over burdensome process which requires solicitors who do not hold practising certificates to complete a yearly online application and pay a fee if they wish their name to remain on the roll of solicitors\u201d. The Submission broadly agreed with the consultation proposal to stop the annual updating process while keeping the power for the SRA to carry out updates when it thinks these are needed. It also broadly agreed with the proposal\u2019s expressed purpose, being \u2018to remove the unnecessary and burdensome process\u2019 involved with solicitors who do not have Practising Certificates (\u2018PCs\u2019) having to renew their roll applications annually. However, the Submission also raised concerns about the failure of the Consultation Paper to address the impact of remaining on the roll in any detail, including in relation to the status of undertakings given by non-practising solicitors who remain on the roll. It also raised concerns about some of the consequences that might arise were the annual updating process to be dispensed with. <\/p>
<\/a><\/div><\/li>02\/06\/2014 - Response to SRA consultation \u201cRed Tape Initiative: Residual client balances\u201d<\/a><\/h2>\r\nThe consultation sought views on proposals to amend the SRA Account Rules 2011 relating to how practitioners deal with client money they are unable to return to clients at the end of a matter (residual client balances), including the processes surrounding the withdrawal of such funds and the basis for distribution to charities. The Submission in response noted that the CLLS supports a proposal to increase the level at which practitioners can self-certify transfers of residual client balances, although it noted that there are differing views within the CLLS about the level at which SRA authorisation should be required. The submission also expressed concern that a significant increase in the self-certification level should be balanced by appropriate but proportional checks and balances. Furthermore, it agreed with the SRA\u2019s view that it ought not to restrict the charities to which residual balances should be transferred. <\/p>
<\/a><\/div><\/li>15\/04\/2014 - Proposed Changes in the Registered European Lawyer Regime<\/a><\/h2>\r\n<\/p>
<\/a><\/div><\/li>11\/02\/2014 - Response to LSB consultation on its draft 2014\/15 Business Plan<\/a><\/h2>\r\nThe response highlighted the amount that the City firms pay annually towards the regulatory and \u2018permitted purposes\u2019 costs of the legal sector, and expressed concern about the absence of the item \u201cMapping the Unregulated Market\u201d from the LSB\u2019s planned research programme. The response called on the LSB to answer a question that it had posed in an earlier consultation (\u201cEnhancing consumer protection, reducing regulatory restrictions\u201d) namely \u201cthere is a question about the relative balance of regulatory focus. Is the current balance of regulation right or are there areas where deregulation may be appropriate?\u2019\u201c\r\n\r\n\r\n<\/p>
<\/a><\/div><\/li>11\/02\/2014 - Response to SRA consultation: Proposal to increase the SRA's internal fining powers<\/a><\/h2>\r\nThe consultation paper invited views on the SRA\u2019s proposal to increase the current level of its fining powers for \u2018traditional\u2019 firms (i.e. non-ABS firms) from the current level of \u00a32,000, and to enable the SRA to agree (rather than impose) fines of a more significant amount with the regulated person concerned under its existing policy of agreeing the outcome of an investigation under its Regulatory Settlements Agreements policy. The response commented in detail on the consultation proposals, and questioned the consultation paper\u2019s presumption that the disciplinary regime that currently applies to ABS firms should be extended to all regulated firms. <\/p>
<\/a><\/div><\/li>26\/11\/2013 - Response to LSB consultation on Chairs of regulatory bodies: Consultation on an amendment to the Internal Governance Rules to require that the Chairs of the Boards of the regulatory arms of each applicable approved regulator be a lay person.<\/a><\/h2>\r\nThe consultation paper focussed on a proposed amendment to the Internal Governance Rules to require that the Chairs of the Boards of the regulatory arms of each \u201capplicable approved regulator\u201d be a lay person. In its response, the Committee raised a number of points, including that it saw \u201clittle merit in a rule change which necessarily narrows the field of candidates for the role of Chair of these bodies, where no evidence is given to show that the presence of a non-lay Chair has meaningfully impeded the independence of the regulator\u201d.<\/p>
<\/a><\/div><\/li>09\/09\/2013 - Review of the Legal Services Regulatory Framework: CLLS Submission to the Ministry of Justice<\/a><\/h2>\r\nReview of the Legal Services Regulatory Framework: CLLS Submission to the Ministry of Justice.<\/p>
<\/a><\/div><\/li>13\/08\/2013 - Response to Committee on Standards in Public Life Consultation on Lobbying Issues and Questions<\/a><\/h2>\r\n<\/p>
<\/a><\/div><\/li>24\/07\/2013 - Minutes of Meeting held in June 2013<\/a><\/h2>\r\nMinutes of Meeting held in June 2013<\/p>
<\/a><\/div><\/li>08\/07\/2013 - Response to SRA Consultation on New Overseas Rules<\/a><\/h2>\r\nResponse to SRA Consultation on New Overseas Rules<\/p>
<\/a><\/div><\/li>07\/07\/2013 - Response to SRA Consultation on New Overseas Rules \u2013 Comments on Annexes<\/a><\/h2>\r\nResponse to SRA Consultation on New Overseas Rules \u2013 Comments on Annexes<\/p>
<\/a><\/div><\/li>04\/07\/2013 - Response to SRA consultation Red Tape Initiative Phase 2: Removing unnecessary regulations and simplifying processes<\/a><\/h2>\r\nResponse to SRA consultation Red Tape Initiative Phase 2: Removing unnecessary regulations and simplifying processes<\/p>
<\/a><\/div><\/li>19\/04\/2013 - Response to SRA consultation: Indicative guidance on financial penalties<\/a><\/h2>\r\nResponse to SRA consultation: Indicative guidance on financial penalties<\/p>
<\/a><\/div><\/li>25\/03\/2013 - Response to SRA Consultation on Handbook Amendments Relating to International<\/a><\/h2>\r\nResponse to SRA Consultation on Handbook Amendments Relating to International Practice <\/p>
<\/a><\/div><\/li>12\/03\/2013 - Response to the LSB Consultation on its Draft Business Plan 2013<\/a><\/h2>\r\nResponse to the LSB Consultation on its Draft Business Plan 2013<\/p>
<\/a><\/div><\/li>11\/03\/2013 - Minutes of Meeting held in February 2013<\/a><\/h2>\r\nMinutes of Meeting held in February 2013<\/p>
<\/a><\/div><\/li>22\/01\/2013 - Response to SRA Consultation on Co-operation Agreements<\/a><\/h2>\r\nResponse to SRA Consultation on Co-operation Agreements<\/p>
<\/a><\/div><\/li>15\/08\/2012 - Response to SRA consultation on The Future of Authorised Professional Firms<\/a><\/h2>\r\nResponse to SRA consultation on The Future of Authorised Professional Firms<\/p>
<\/a><\/div><\/li>12\/04\/2012 - Response to HMG Consultation on Introducing a Statutory Register of Lobbyists<\/a><\/h2>\r\nResponse to HMG Consultation on Introducing a Statutory Register of Lobbyists<\/p>
<\/a><\/div><\/li>14\/02\/2012 - Response to the SRA's<\/a><\/h2>\r\nResponse to the SRA's \"Regulation of International Practice\" Consultation<\/p>
<\/a><\/div><\/li>17\/01\/2012 - Response to SRA consultation \u201cSRA financial protection review\u201d<\/a><\/h2>\r\nResponse to SRA consultation \u201cSRA financial protection review\u201d<\/p>
<\/a><\/div><\/li>17\/01\/2012 - Minutes of the Meeting held in December 2011<\/a><\/h2>\r\nMinutes of the Meeting held in December 2011<\/p>
<\/a><\/div><\/li>26\/10\/2011 - Minutes from Meeting held in June 2011<\/a><\/h2>\r\nMinutes from Meeting held in June 2011<\/p>
<\/a><\/div><\/li>11\/07\/2011 - Response to SRA Consultation<\/a><\/h2>\r\nResponse to SRA Consultation \"Alternative Business Structures Fee Structure\"<\/p>
<\/a><\/div><\/li>26\/04\/2011 - Response to SRA Consultation<\/a><\/h2>\r\nResponse to SRA Consultation \"Future Client Financial Protection Arrangements\" <\/p>
<\/a><\/div><\/li>28\/02\/2011 - CLLS Response to the SRA Architecture of Change Part 2 Consultation<\/a><\/h2>\r\nCLLS Response to the SRA Architecture of Change Part 2 Consultation<\/p>
<\/a><\/div><\/li>10\/06\/2015 - Response to the Consultation on the SRA Regulatory Reform Programme<\/a><\/h2>\r\n<\/p>
<\/a><\/div><\/li>18\/02\/2015 - Response to LSB Strategic Plan 2015-18 and Busines Plan 2015-16<\/a><\/h2>\r\n<\/p>
<\/a><\/div><\/li>11\/02\/2015 - Response to the SRA Separate Business Rule Consultation<\/a><\/h2>\r\n<\/p>
<\/a><\/div><\/li>28\/01\/2015 - Response to SRA Consultation on Proportionate Regulation: reporting accountant requirements<\/a><\/h2>\r\n<\/p>
<\/a><\/div><\/li>17\/12\/2014 - Response to Consultation on SRA's Regulation of Consumer Credit Activities<\/a><\/h2>\r\n<\/p>
<\/a><\/div><\/li>16\/12\/2014 - Response to the SRA's Consultation on Overseas Accounts Rules<\/a><\/h2>\r\n<\/p>
<\/a><\/div><\/li>03\/07\/2014 - Response to further SRA consultation on proposed changes to the registered European lawyer regime<\/a><\/h2>\r\nThe Committee responded to the SRA\u2019s further consultation on its proposed amendments to the Handbook. The response commented specifically on the proposal to apply the conduct provisions to solicitors within foreign firms in the same way as it was proposed they would apply to RELs within an EEP.\r\n\r\n<\/p>
<\/a><\/div><\/li>03\/07\/2014 - Response to SRA Consultation Paper on Multi-Disciplinary Practices<\/a><\/h2>\r\nThe consultation sought views on policy changes and associated amendments to the SRA Handbook which were aimed at achieving a proportionate regulatory framework for the authorisation and supervision of multi-disciplinary alternative business structures providing legal and non\u2013legal services. One driver behind the consultation was the SRA\u2019s concern that some of the rules in the SRA Handbook may have become an impediment to the effective licensing and regulation of some licensed bodies; and in particular, those rules that require all legal activity within an SRA authorised MDP to be SRA regulated. The CLLS response argued that if non-Reserved activity is not regulated when it is carried out by a non-Authorised person, then it need not be regulated when it is carried out by a better-qualified Authorised Person. The CLLS argued that this regulatory asymmetry means that solicitors, as Authorised Persons, are commercially disadvantaged in comparison with non-Authorised Persons, when doing the same tasks. The CLLS response raised some further concerns, (including the fact that the SRA\u2019s regulatory proposals in this area do not appear to be based on a comprehensive risk analysis of the field), and responded to the specific consultation questions. <\/p>
<\/a><\/div><\/li>23\/06\/2014 - Response to SRA consultation: Proportionate regulation - changes to minimum compulsory professional indemnity cover<\/a><\/h2>\r\nThis consultation paper contained proposals which the SRA stated were aimed at reducing the regulatory burden, providing targeted regulation and increasing competition. The proposals form part of a wider SRA review of the scope of cover under the Minimum Terms and Conditions. The CLLS submission in response supported in principle the idea of reducing the insurance costs burden in a manner which would allow firms to consider the appropriate level of cover they need (subject to a mandatory minimum). However, it expressed the view that the SRA needs to have consulted with the insurers before making specific proposals. It went on to state that the consultation paper had adduced no evidence that the proposals would in fact attract the costs reductions they are aiming for, and that a reduction in the minimum insurance requirement may well have no effect on the premiums charged by insurance companies. It stressed the need for the proposals to be evidence-based, and strongly recommended that any reform be delayed until the 2015 renewal.<\/p>
<\/a><\/div><\/li>20\/06\/2014 - Response to SRA consultation: Compensation Arrangements Review - the introduction of an eligibility criteria<\/a><\/h2>\r\nThe consultation invited views on the SRA\u2019s arrangements for compensating clients who suffer financial loss due to dishonesty, failure to account or civil liability of uninsured practitioners. The CLLS submission responded to the specific consultation questions. The submission also expressed, more generally, a concern that the SRA was consulting on an important topic that may have significant implications, in particular for consumers who do suffer losses, without explaining (i) clearly what has driven the proposal or (ii) providing supporting evidence, that only the SRA can provide, about the impact of the proposal.<\/p>
<\/a><\/div><\/li>19\/06\/2014 - Response to SRA consultation on Proportionate regulation: changes to reporting accounting requirements<\/a><\/h2>\r\nThis consultation paper contained two proposals: removal of the mandatory requirement that firms must submit an annual accountant's report to the SRA, and requiring COFAs to sign a declaration that they are satisfied that their respective firms are managing their client accounts in accordance with the SRA Account Rules. The proposals form part of an SRA programme to reform its regulatory regime \u201cto reduce unnecessary burdens and provide flexibility of approach to deliver good financial management\u201d. The submission responded to the specific consultation questions, and argued more generally that the consultation was premature, and that no changes should be made to the current reporting accountant regime until such time as the general review of the SRA accounts rules had been completed. <\/p>
<\/a><\/div><\/li>02\/06\/2014 - Response to SRA consultation \u201cAnnual keeping of the roll exercise\u201d<\/a><\/h2>\r\nThe consultation sought views on proposals to remove \u201cthe unnecessary and over burdensome process which requires solicitors who do not hold practising certificates to complete a yearly online application and pay a fee if they wish their name to remain on the roll of solicitors\u201d. The Submission broadly agreed with the consultation proposal to stop the annual updating process while keeping the power for the SRA to carry out updates when it thinks these are needed. It also broadly agreed with the proposal\u2019s expressed purpose, being \u2018to remove the unnecessary and burdensome process\u2019 involved with solicitors who do not have Practising Certificates (\u2018PCs\u2019) having to renew their roll applications annually. However, the Submission also raised concerns about the failure of the Consultation Paper to address the impact of remaining on the roll in any detail, including in relation to the status of undertakings given by non-practising solicitors who remain on the roll. It also raised concerns about some of the consequences that might arise were the annual updating process to be dispensed with. <\/p>
<\/a><\/div><\/li>02\/06\/2014 - Response to SRA consultation \u201cRed Tape Initiative: Residual client balances\u201d<\/a><\/h2>\r\nThe consultation sought views on proposals to amend the SRA Account Rules 2011 relating to how practitioners deal with client money they are unable to return to clients at the end of a matter (residual client balances), including the processes surrounding the withdrawal of such funds and the basis for distribution to charities. The Submission in response noted that the CLLS supports a proposal to increase the level at which practitioners can self-certify transfers of residual client balances, although it noted that there are differing views within the CLLS about the level at which SRA authorisation should be required. The submission also expressed concern that a significant increase in the self-certification level should be balanced by appropriate but proportional checks and balances. Furthermore, it agreed with the SRA\u2019s view that it ought not to restrict the charities to which residual balances should be transferred. <\/p>
<\/a><\/div><\/li>15\/04\/2014 - Proposed Changes in the Registered European Lawyer Regime<\/a><\/h2>\r\n<\/p>
<\/a><\/div><\/li>11\/02\/2014 - Response to LSB consultation on its draft 2014\/15 Business Plan<\/a><\/h2>\r\nThe response highlighted the amount that the City firms pay annually towards the regulatory and \u2018permitted purposes\u2019 costs of the legal sector, and expressed concern about the absence of the item \u201cMapping the Unregulated Market\u201d from the LSB\u2019s planned research programme. The response called on the LSB to answer a question that it had posed in an earlier consultation (\u201cEnhancing consumer protection, reducing regulatory restrictions\u201d) namely \u201cthere is a question about the relative balance of regulatory focus. Is the current balance of regulation right or are there areas where deregulation may be appropriate?\u2019\u201c\r\n\r\n\r\n<\/p>
<\/a><\/div><\/li>11\/02\/2014 - Response to SRA consultation: Proposal to increase the SRA's internal fining powers<\/a><\/h2>\r\nThe consultation paper invited views on the SRA\u2019s proposal to increase the current level of its fining powers for \u2018traditional\u2019 firms (i.e. non-ABS firms) from the current level of \u00a32,000, and to enable the SRA to agree (rather than impose) fines of a more significant amount with the regulated person concerned under its existing policy of agreeing the outcome of an investigation under its Regulatory Settlements Agreements policy. The response commented in detail on the consultation proposals, and questioned the consultation paper\u2019s presumption that the disciplinary regime that currently applies to ABS firms should be extended to all regulated firms. <\/p>
<\/a><\/div><\/li>26\/11\/2013 - Response to LSB consultation on Chairs of regulatory bodies: Consultation on an amendment to the Internal Governance Rules to require that the Chairs of the Boards of the regulatory arms of each applicable approved regulator be a lay person.<\/a><\/h2>\r\nThe consultation paper focussed on a proposed amendment to the Internal Governance Rules to require that the Chairs of the Boards of the regulatory arms of each \u201capplicable approved regulator\u201d be a lay person. In its response, the Committee raised a number of points, including that it saw \u201clittle merit in a rule change which necessarily narrows the field of candidates for the role of Chair of these bodies, where no evidence is given to show that the presence of a non-lay Chair has meaningfully impeded the independence of the regulator\u201d.<\/p>
<\/a><\/div><\/li>09\/09\/2013 - Review of the Legal Services Regulatory Framework: CLLS Submission to the Ministry of Justice<\/a><\/h2>\r\nReview of the Legal Services Regulatory Framework: CLLS Submission to the Ministry of Justice.<\/p>
<\/a><\/div><\/li>13\/08\/2013 - Response to Committee on Standards in Public Life Consultation on Lobbying Issues and Questions<\/a><\/h2>\r\n<\/p>
<\/a><\/div><\/li>24\/07\/2013 - Minutes of Meeting held in June 2013<\/a><\/h2>\r\nMinutes of Meeting held in June 2013<\/p>
<\/a><\/div><\/li>08\/07\/2013 - Response to SRA Consultation on New Overseas Rules<\/a><\/h2>\r\nResponse to SRA Consultation on New Overseas Rules<\/p>
<\/a><\/div><\/li>07\/07\/2013 - Response to SRA Consultation on New Overseas Rules \u2013 Comments on Annexes<\/a><\/h2>\r\nResponse to SRA Consultation on New Overseas Rules \u2013 Comments on Annexes<\/p>
<\/a><\/div><\/li>04\/07\/2013 - Response to SRA consultation Red Tape Initiative Phase 2: Removing unnecessary regulations and simplifying processes<\/a><\/h2>\r\nResponse to SRA consultation Red Tape Initiative Phase 2: Removing unnecessary regulations and simplifying processes<\/p>
<\/a><\/div><\/li>19\/04\/2013 - Response to SRA consultation: Indicative guidance on financial penalties<\/a><\/h2>\r\nResponse to SRA consultation: Indicative guidance on financial penalties<\/p>
<\/a><\/div><\/li>25\/03\/2013 - Response to SRA Consultation on Handbook Amendments Relating to International<\/a><\/h2>\r\nResponse to SRA Consultation on Handbook Amendments Relating to International Practice <\/p>
<\/a><\/div><\/li>12\/03\/2013 - Response to the LSB Consultation on its Draft Business Plan 2013<\/a><\/h2>\r\nResponse to the LSB Consultation on its Draft Business Plan 2013<\/p>
<\/a><\/div><\/li>11\/03\/2013 - Minutes of Meeting held in February 2013<\/a><\/h2>\r\nMinutes of Meeting held in February 2013<\/p>
<\/a><\/div><\/li>22\/01\/2013 - Response to SRA Consultation on Co-operation Agreements<\/a><\/h2>\r\nResponse to SRA Consultation on Co-operation Agreements<\/p>
<\/a><\/div><\/li>15\/08\/2012 - Response to SRA consultation on The Future of Authorised Professional Firms<\/a><\/h2>\r\nResponse to SRA consultation on The Future of Authorised Professional Firms<\/p>
<\/a><\/div><\/li>12\/04\/2012 - Response to HMG Consultation on Introducing a Statutory Register of Lobbyists<\/a><\/h2>\r\nResponse to HMG Consultation on Introducing a Statutory Register of Lobbyists<\/p>
<\/a><\/div><\/li>14\/02\/2012 - Response to the SRA's<\/a><\/h2>\r\nResponse to the SRA's \"Regulation of International Practice\" Consultation<\/p>
<\/a><\/div><\/li>17\/01\/2012 - Response to SRA consultation \u201cSRA financial protection review\u201d<\/a><\/h2>\r\nResponse to SRA consultation \u201cSRA financial protection review\u201d<\/p>
<\/a><\/div><\/li>17\/01\/2012 - Minutes of the Meeting held in December 2011<\/a><\/h2>\r\nMinutes of the Meeting held in December 2011<\/p>
<\/a><\/div><\/li>26\/10\/2011 - Minutes from Meeting held in June 2011<\/a><\/h2>\r\nMinutes from Meeting held in June 2011<\/p>
<\/a><\/div><\/li>11\/07\/2011 - Response to SRA Consultation<\/a><\/h2>\r\nResponse to SRA Consultation \"Alternative Business Structures Fee Structure\"<\/p>
<\/a><\/div><\/li>26\/04\/2011 - Response to SRA Consultation<\/a><\/h2>\r\nResponse to SRA Consultation \"Future Client Financial Protection Arrangements\" <\/p>
<\/a><\/div><\/li>28\/02\/2011 - CLLS Response to the SRA Architecture of Change Part 2 Consultation<\/a><\/h2>\r\nCLLS Response to the SRA Architecture of Change Part 2 Consultation<\/p>
<\/a><\/div><\/li>18\/02\/2015 - Response to LSB Strategic Plan 2015-18 and Busines Plan 2015-16<\/a><\/h2>\r\n<\/p>
<\/a><\/div><\/li>11\/02\/2015 - Response to the SRA Separate Business Rule Consultation<\/a><\/h2>\r\n<\/p>
<\/a><\/div><\/li>28\/01\/2015 - Response to SRA Consultation on Proportionate Regulation: reporting accountant requirements<\/a><\/h2>\r\n<\/p>
<\/a><\/div><\/li>17\/12\/2014 - Response to Consultation on SRA's Regulation of Consumer Credit Activities<\/a><\/h2>\r\n<\/p>
<\/a><\/div><\/li>16\/12\/2014 - Response to the SRA's Consultation on Overseas Accounts Rules<\/a><\/h2>\r\n<\/p>
<\/a><\/div><\/li>03\/07\/2014 - Response to further SRA consultation on proposed changes to the registered European lawyer regime<\/a><\/h2>\r\nThe Committee responded to the SRA\u2019s further consultation on its proposed amendments to the Handbook. The response commented specifically on the proposal to apply the conduct provisions to solicitors within foreign firms in the same way as it was proposed they would apply to RELs within an EEP.\r\n\r\n<\/p>
<\/a><\/div><\/li>03\/07\/2014 - Response to SRA Consultation Paper on Multi-Disciplinary Practices<\/a><\/h2>\r\nThe consultation sought views on policy changes and associated amendments to the SRA Handbook which were aimed at achieving a proportionate regulatory framework for the authorisation and supervision of multi-disciplinary alternative business structures providing legal and non\u2013legal services. One driver behind the consultation was the SRA\u2019s concern that some of the rules in the SRA Handbook may have become an impediment to the effective licensing and regulation of some licensed bodies; and in particular, those rules that require all legal activity within an SRA authorised MDP to be SRA regulated. The CLLS response argued that if non-Reserved activity is not regulated when it is carried out by a non-Authorised person, then it need not be regulated when it is carried out by a better-qualified Authorised Person. The CLLS argued that this regulatory asymmetry means that solicitors, as Authorised Persons, are commercially disadvantaged in comparison with non-Authorised Persons, when doing the same tasks. The CLLS response raised some further concerns, (including the fact that the SRA\u2019s regulatory proposals in this area do not appear to be based on a comprehensive risk analysis of the field), and responded to the specific consultation questions. <\/p>
<\/a><\/div><\/li>23\/06\/2014 - Response to SRA consultation: Proportionate regulation - changes to minimum compulsory professional indemnity cover<\/a><\/h2>\r\nThis consultation paper contained proposals which the SRA stated were aimed at reducing the regulatory burden, providing targeted regulation and increasing competition. The proposals form part of a wider SRA review of the scope of cover under the Minimum Terms and Conditions. The CLLS submission in response supported in principle the idea of reducing the insurance costs burden in a manner which would allow firms to consider the appropriate level of cover they need (subject to a mandatory minimum). However, it expressed the view that the SRA needs to have consulted with the insurers before making specific proposals. It went on to state that the consultation paper had adduced no evidence that the proposals would in fact attract the costs reductions they are aiming for, and that a reduction in the minimum insurance requirement may well have no effect on the premiums charged by insurance companies. It stressed the need for the proposals to be evidence-based, and strongly recommended that any reform be delayed until the 2015 renewal.<\/p>
<\/a><\/div><\/li>20\/06\/2014 - Response to SRA consultation: Compensation Arrangements Review - the introduction of an eligibility criteria<\/a><\/h2>\r\nThe consultation invited views on the SRA\u2019s arrangements for compensating clients who suffer financial loss due to dishonesty, failure to account or civil liability of uninsured practitioners. The CLLS submission responded to the specific consultation questions. The submission also expressed, more generally, a concern that the SRA was consulting on an important topic that may have significant implications, in particular for consumers who do suffer losses, without explaining (i) clearly what has driven the proposal or (ii) providing supporting evidence, that only the SRA can provide, about the impact of the proposal.<\/p>
<\/a><\/div><\/li>19\/06\/2014 - Response to SRA consultation on Proportionate regulation: changes to reporting accounting requirements<\/a><\/h2>\r\nThis consultation paper contained two proposals: removal of the mandatory requirement that firms must submit an annual accountant's report to the SRA, and requiring COFAs to sign a declaration that they are satisfied that their respective firms are managing their client accounts in accordance with the SRA Account Rules. The proposals form part of an SRA programme to reform its regulatory regime \u201cto reduce unnecessary burdens and provide flexibility of approach to deliver good financial management\u201d. The submission responded to the specific consultation questions, and argued more generally that the consultation was premature, and that no changes should be made to the current reporting accountant regime until such time as the general review of the SRA accounts rules had been completed. <\/p>
<\/a><\/div><\/li>02\/06\/2014 - Response to SRA consultation \u201cAnnual keeping of the roll exercise\u201d<\/a><\/h2>\r\nThe consultation sought views on proposals to remove \u201cthe unnecessary and over burdensome process which requires solicitors who do not hold practising certificates to complete a yearly online application and pay a fee if they wish their name to remain on the roll of solicitors\u201d. The Submission broadly agreed with the consultation proposal to stop the annual updating process while keeping the power for the SRA to carry out updates when it thinks these are needed. It also broadly agreed with the proposal\u2019s expressed purpose, being \u2018to remove the unnecessary and burdensome process\u2019 involved with solicitors who do not have Practising Certificates (\u2018PCs\u2019) having to renew their roll applications annually. However, the Submission also raised concerns about the failure of the Consultation Paper to address the impact of remaining on the roll in any detail, including in relation to the status of undertakings given by non-practising solicitors who remain on the roll. It also raised concerns about some of the consequences that might arise were the annual updating process to be dispensed with. <\/p>
<\/a><\/div><\/li>02\/06\/2014 - Response to SRA consultation \u201cRed Tape Initiative: Residual client balances\u201d<\/a><\/h2>\r\nThe consultation sought views on proposals to amend the SRA Account Rules 2011 relating to how practitioners deal with client money they are unable to return to clients at the end of a matter (residual client balances), including the processes surrounding the withdrawal of such funds and the basis for distribution to charities. The Submission in response noted that the CLLS supports a proposal to increase the level at which practitioners can self-certify transfers of residual client balances, although it noted that there are differing views within the CLLS about the level at which SRA authorisation should be required. The submission also expressed concern that a significant increase in the self-certification level should be balanced by appropriate but proportional checks and balances. Furthermore, it agreed with the SRA\u2019s view that it ought not to restrict the charities to which residual balances should be transferred. <\/p>
<\/a><\/div><\/li>15\/04\/2014 - Proposed Changes in the Registered European Lawyer Regime<\/a><\/h2>\r\n<\/p>
<\/a><\/div><\/li>11\/02\/2014 - Response to LSB consultation on its draft 2014\/15 Business Plan<\/a><\/h2>\r\nThe response highlighted the amount that the City firms pay annually towards the regulatory and \u2018permitted purposes\u2019 costs of the legal sector, and expressed concern about the absence of the item \u201cMapping the Unregulated Market\u201d from the LSB\u2019s planned research programme. The response called on the LSB to answer a question that it had posed in an earlier consultation (\u201cEnhancing consumer protection, reducing regulatory restrictions\u201d) namely \u201cthere is a question about the relative balance of regulatory focus. Is the current balance of regulation right or are there areas where deregulation may be appropriate?\u2019\u201c\r\n\r\n\r\n<\/p>
<\/a><\/div><\/li>11\/02\/2014 - Response to SRA consultation: Proposal to increase the SRA's internal fining powers<\/a><\/h2>\r\nThe consultation paper invited views on the SRA\u2019s proposal to increase the current level of its fining powers for \u2018traditional\u2019 firms (i.e. non-ABS firms) from the current level of \u00a32,000, and to enable the SRA to agree (rather than impose) fines of a more significant amount with the regulated person concerned under its existing policy of agreeing the outcome of an investigation under its Regulatory Settlements Agreements policy. The response commented in detail on the consultation proposals, and questioned the consultation paper\u2019s presumption that the disciplinary regime that currently applies to ABS firms should be extended to all regulated firms. <\/p>
<\/a><\/div><\/li>26\/11\/2013 - Response to LSB consultation on Chairs of regulatory bodies: Consultation on an amendment to the Internal Governance Rules to require that the Chairs of the Boards of the regulatory arms of each applicable approved regulator be a lay person.<\/a><\/h2>\r\nThe consultation paper focussed on a proposed amendment to the Internal Governance Rules to require that the Chairs of the Boards of the regulatory arms of each \u201capplicable approved regulator\u201d be a lay person. In its response, the Committee raised a number of points, including that it saw \u201clittle merit in a rule change which necessarily narrows the field of candidates for the role of Chair of these bodies, where no evidence is given to show that the presence of a non-lay Chair has meaningfully impeded the independence of the regulator\u201d.<\/p>
<\/a><\/div><\/li>09\/09\/2013 - Review of the Legal Services Regulatory Framework: CLLS Submission to the Ministry of Justice<\/a><\/h2>\r\nReview of the Legal Services Regulatory Framework: CLLS Submission to the Ministry of Justice.<\/p>
<\/a><\/div><\/li>13\/08\/2013 - Response to Committee on Standards in Public Life Consultation on Lobbying Issues and Questions<\/a><\/h2>\r\n<\/p>
<\/a><\/div><\/li>24\/07\/2013 - Minutes of Meeting held in June 2013<\/a><\/h2>\r\nMinutes of Meeting held in June 2013<\/p>
<\/a><\/div><\/li>08\/07\/2013 - Response to SRA Consultation on New Overseas Rules<\/a><\/h2>\r\nResponse to SRA Consultation on New Overseas Rules<\/p>
<\/a><\/div><\/li>07\/07\/2013 - Response to SRA Consultation on New Overseas Rules \u2013 Comments on Annexes<\/a><\/h2>\r\nResponse to SRA Consultation on New Overseas Rules \u2013 Comments on Annexes<\/p>
<\/a><\/div><\/li>04\/07\/2013 - Response to SRA consultation Red Tape Initiative Phase 2: Removing unnecessary regulations and simplifying processes<\/a><\/h2>\r\nResponse to SRA consultation Red Tape Initiative Phase 2: Removing unnecessary regulations and simplifying processes<\/p>
<\/a><\/div><\/li>19\/04\/2013 - Response to SRA consultation: Indicative guidance on financial penalties<\/a><\/h2>\r\nResponse to SRA consultation: Indicative guidance on financial penalties<\/p>
<\/a><\/div><\/li>25\/03\/2013 - Response to SRA Consultation on Handbook Amendments Relating to International<\/a><\/h2>\r\nResponse to SRA Consultation on Handbook Amendments Relating to International Practice <\/p>
<\/a><\/div><\/li>12\/03\/2013 - Response to the LSB Consultation on its Draft Business Plan 2013<\/a><\/h2>\r\nResponse to the LSB Consultation on its Draft Business Plan 2013<\/p>
<\/a><\/div><\/li>11\/03\/2013 - Minutes of Meeting held in February 2013<\/a><\/h2>\r\nMinutes of Meeting held in February 2013<\/p>
<\/a><\/div><\/li>22\/01\/2013 - Response to SRA Consultation on Co-operation Agreements<\/a><\/h2>\r\nResponse to SRA Consultation on Co-operation Agreements<\/p>
<\/a><\/div><\/li>15\/08\/2012 - Response to SRA consultation on The Future of Authorised Professional Firms<\/a><\/h2>\r\nResponse to SRA consultation on The Future of Authorised Professional Firms<\/p>
<\/a><\/div><\/li>12\/04\/2012 - Response to HMG Consultation on Introducing a Statutory Register of Lobbyists<\/a><\/h2>\r\nResponse to HMG Consultation on Introducing a Statutory Register of Lobbyists<\/p>
<\/a><\/div><\/li>14\/02\/2012 - Response to the SRA's<\/a><\/h2>\r\nResponse to the SRA's \"Regulation of International Practice\" Consultation<\/p>
<\/a><\/div><\/li>17\/01\/2012 - Response to SRA consultation \u201cSRA financial protection review\u201d<\/a><\/h2>\r\nResponse to SRA consultation \u201cSRA financial protection review\u201d<\/p>
<\/a><\/div><\/li>17\/01\/2012 - Minutes of the Meeting held in December 2011<\/a><\/h2>\r\nMinutes of the Meeting held in December 2011<\/p>
<\/a><\/div><\/li>26\/10\/2011 - Minutes from Meeting held in June 2011<\/a><\/h2>\r\nMinutes from Meeting held in June 2011<\/p>
<\/a><\/div><\/li>11\/07\/2011 - Response to SRA Consultation<\/a><\/h2>\r\nResponse to SRA Consultation \"Alternative Business Structures Fee Structure\"<\/p>
<\/a><\/div><\/li>26\/04\/2011 - Response to SRA Consultation<\/a><\/h2>\r\nResponse to SRA Consultation \"Future Client Financial Protection Arrangements\" <\/p>
<\/a><\/div><\/li>28\/02\/2011 - CLLS Response to the SRA Architecture of Change Part 2 Consultation<\/a><\/h2>\r\nCLLS Response to the SRA Architecture of Change Part 2 Consultation<\/p>
<\/a><\/div><\/li>11\/02\/2015 - Response to the SRA Separate Business Rule Consultation<\/a><\/h2>\r\n<\/p>
<\/a><\/div><\/li>28\/01\/2015 - Response to SRA Consultation on Proportionate Regulation: reporting accountant requirements<\/a><\/h2>\r\n<\/p>
<\/a><\/div><\/li>17\/12\/2014 - Response to Consultation on SRA's Regulation of Consumer Credit Activities<\/a><\/h2>\r\n<\/p>
<\/a><\/div><\/li>16\/12\/2014 - Response to the SRA's Consultation on Overseas Accounts Rules<\/a><\/h2>\r\n<\/p>
<\/a><\/div><\/li>03\/07\/2014 - Response to further SRA consultation on proposed changes to the registered European lawyer regime<\/a><\/h2>\r\nThe Committee responded to the SRA\u2019s further consultation on its proposed amendments to the Handbook. The response commented specifically on the proposal to apply the conduct provisions to solicitors within foreign firms in the same way as it was proposed they would apply to RELs within an EEP.\r\n\r\n<\/p>
<\/a><\/div><\/li>03\/07\/2014 - Response to SRA Consultation Paper on Multi-Disciplinary Practices<\/a><\/h2>\r\nThe consultation sought views on policy changes and associated amendments to the SRA Handbook which were aimed at achieving a proportionate regulatory framework for the authorisation and supervision of multi-disciplinary alternative business structures providing legal and non\u2013legal services. One driver behind the consultation was the SRA\u2019s concern that some of the rules in the SRA Handbook may have become an impediment to the effective licensing and regulation of some licensed bodies; and in particular, those rules that require all legal activity within an SRA authorised MDP to be SRA regulated. The CLLS response argued that if non-Reserved activity is not regulated when it is carried out by a non-Authorised person, then it need not be regulated when it is carried out by a better-qualified Authorised Person. The CLLS argued that this regulatory asymmetry means that solicitors, as Authorised Persons, are commercially disadvantaged in comparison with non-Authorised Persons, when doing the same tasks. The CLLS response raised some further concerns, (including the fact that the SRA\u2019s regulatory proposals in this area do not appear to be based on a comprehensive risk analysis of the field), and responded to the specific consultation questions. <\/p>
<\/a><\/div><\/li>23\/06\/2014 - Response to SRA consultation: Proportionate regulation - changes to minimum compulsory professional indemnity cover<\/a><\/h2>\r\nThis consultation paper contained proposals which the SRA stated were aimed at reducing the regulatory burden, providing targeted regulation and increasing competition. The proposals form part of a wider SRA review of the scope of cover under the Minimum Terms and Conditions. The CLLS submission in response supported in principle the idea of reducing the insurance costs burden in a manner which would allow firms to consider the appropriate level of cover they need (subject to a mandatory minimum). However, it expressed the view that the SRA needs to have consulted with the insurers before making specific proposals. It went on to state that the consultation paper had adduced no evidence that the proposals would in fact attract the costs reductions they are aiming for, and that a reduction in the minimum insurance requirement may well have no effect on the premiums charged by insurance companies. It stressed the need for the proposals to be evidence-based, and strongly recommended that any reform be delayed until the 2015 renewal.<\/p>
<\/a><\/div><\/li>20\/06\/2014 - Response to SRA consultation: Compensation Arrangements Review - the introduction of an eligibility criteria<\/a><\/h2>\r\nThe consultation invited views on the SRA\u2019s arrangements for compensating clients who suffer financial loss due to dishonesty, failure to account or civil liability of uninsured practitioners. The CLLS submission responded to the specific consultation questions. The submission also expressed, more generally, a concern that the SRA was consulting on an important topic that may have significant implications, in particular for consumers who do suffer losses, without explaining (i) clearly what has driven the proposal or (ii) providing supporting evidence, that only the SRA can provide, about the impact of the proposal.<\/p>
<\/a><\/div><\/li>19\/06\/2014 - Response to SRA consultation on Proportionate regulation: changes to reporting accounting requirements<\/a><\/h2>\r\nThis consultation paper contained two proposals: removal of the mandatory requirement that firms must submit an annual accountant's report to the SRA, and requiring COFAs to sign a declaration that they are satisfied that their respective firms are managing their client accounts in accordance with the SRA Account Rules. The proposals form part of an SRA programme to reform its regulatory regime \u201cto reduce unnecessary burdens and provide flexibility of approach to deliver good financial management\u201d. The submission responded to the specific consultation questions, and argued more generally that the consultation was premature, and that no changes should be made to the current reporting accountant regime until such time as the general review of the SRA accounts rules had been completed. <\/p>
<\/a><\/div><\/li>02\/06\/2014 - Response to SRA consultation \u201cAnnual keeping of the roll exercise\u201d<\/a><\/h2>\r\nThe consultation sought views on proposals to remove \u201cthe unnecessary and over burdensome process which requires solicitors who do not hold practising certificates to complete a yearly online application and pay a fee if they wish their name to remain on the roll of solicitors\u201d. The Submission broadly agreed with the consultation proposal to stop the annual updating process while keeping the power for the SRA to carry out updates when it thinks these are needed. It also broadly agreed with the proposal\u2019s expressed purpose, being \u2018to remove the unnecessary and burdensome process\u2019 involved with solicitors who do not have Practising Certificates (\u2018PCs\u2019) having to renew their roll applications annually. However, the Submission also raised concerns about the failure of the Consultation Paper to address the impact of remaining on the roll in any detail, including in relation to the status of undertakings given by non-practising solicitors who remain on the roll. It also raised concerns about some of the consequences that might arise were the annual updating process to be dispensed with. <\/p>
<\/a><\/div><\/li>02\/06\/2014 - Response to SRA consultation \u201cRed Tape Initiative: Residual client balances\u201d<\/a><\/h2>\r\nThe consultation sought views on proposals to amend the SRA Account Rules 2011 relating to how practitioners deal with client money they are unable to return to clients at the end of a matter (residual client balances), including the processes surrounding the withdrawal of such funds and the basis for distribution to charities. The Submission in response noted that the CLLS supports a proposal to increase the level at which practitioners can self-certify transfers of residual client balances, although it noted that there are differing views within the CLLS about the level at which SRA authorisation should be required. The submission also expressed concern that a significant increase in the self-certification level should be balanced by appropriate but proportional checks and balances. Furthermore, it agreed with the SRA\u2019s view that it ought not to restrict the charities to which residual balances should be transferred. <\/p>
<\/a><\/div><\/li>15\/04\/2014 - Proposed Changes in the Registered European Lawyer Regime<\/a><\/h2>\r\n<\/p>
<\/a><\/div><\/li>11\/02\/2014 - Response to LSB consultation on its draft 2014\/15 Business Plan<\/a><\/h2>\r\nThe response highlighted the amount that the City firms pay annually towards the regulatory and \u2018permitted purposes\u2019 costs of the legal sector, and expressed concern about the absence of the item \u201cMapping the Unregulated Market\u201d from the LSB\u2019s planned research programme. The response called on the LSB to answer a question that it had posed in an earlier consultation (\u201cEnhancing consumer protection, reducing regulatory restrictions\u201d) namely \u201cthere is a question about the relative balance of regulatory focus. Is the current balance of regulation right or are there areas where deregulation may be appropriate?\u2019\u201c\r\n\r\n\r\n<\/p>
<\/a><\/div><\/li>11\/02\/2014 - Response to SRA consultation: Proposal to increase the SRA's internal fining powers<\/a><\/h2>\r\nThe consultation paper invited views on the SRA\u2019s proposal to increase the current level of its fining powers for \u2018traditional\u2019 firms (i.e. non-ABS firms) from the current level of \u00a32,000, and to enable the SRA to agree (rather than impose) fines of a more significant amount with the regulated person concerned under its existing policy of agreeing the outcome of an investigation under its Regulatory Settlements Agreements policy. The response commented in detail on the consultation proposals, and questioned the consultation paper\u2019s presumption that the disciplinary regime that currently applies to ABS firms should be extended to all regulated firms. <\/p>
<\/a><\/div><\/li>26\/11\/2013 - Response to LSB consultation on Chairs of regulatory bodies: Consultation on an amendment to the Internal Governance Rules to require that the Chairs of the Boards of the regulatory arms of each applicable approved regulator be a lay person.<\/a><\/h2>\r\nThe consultation paper focussed on a proposed amendment to the Internal Governance Rules to require that the Chairs of the Boards of the regulatory arms of each \u201capplicable approved regulator\u201d be a lay person. In its response, the Committee raised a number of points, including that it saw \u201clittle merit in a rule change which necessarily narrows the field of candidates for the role of Chair of these bodies, where no evidence is given to show that the presence of a non-lay Chair has meaningfully impeded the independence of the regulator\u201d.<\/p>
<\/a><\/div><\/li>09\/09\/2013 - Review of the Legal Services Regulatory Framework: CLLS Submission to the Ministry of Justice<\/a><\/h2>\r\nReview of the Legal Services Regulatory Framework: CLLS Submission to the Ministry of Justice.<\/p>
<\/a><\/div><\/li>13\/08\/2013 - Response to Committee on Standards in Public Life Consultation on Lobbying Issues and Questions<\/a><\/h2>\r\n<\/p>
<\/a><\/div><\/li>24\/07\/2013 - Minutes of Meeting held in June 2013<\/a><\/h2>\r\nMinutes of Meeting held in June 2013<\/p>
<\/a><\/div><\/li>08\/07\/2013 - Response to SRA Consultation on New Overseas Rules<\/a><\/h2>\r\nResponse to SRA Consultation on New Overseas Rules<\/p>
<\/a><\/div><\/li>07\/07\/2013 - Response to SRA Consultation on New Overseas Rules \u2013 Comments on Annexes<\/a><\/h2>\r\nResponse to SRA Consultation on New Overseas Rules \u2013 Comments on Annexes<\/p>
<\/a><\/div><\/li>04\/07\/2013 - Response to SRA consultation Red Tape Initiative Phase 2: Removing unnecessary regulations and simplifying processes<\/a><\/h2>\r\nResponse to SRA consultation Red Tape Initiative Phase 2: Removing unnecessary regulations and simplifying processes<\/p>
<\/a><\/div><\/li>19\/04\/2013 - Response to SRA consultation: Indicative guidance on financial penalties<\/a><\/h2>\r\nResponse to SRA consultation: Indicative guidance on financial penalties<\/p>
<\/a><\/div><\/li>25\/03\/2013 - Response to SRA Consultation on Handbook Amendments Relating to International<\/a><\/h2>\r\nResponse to SRA Consultation on Handbook Amendments Relating to International Practice <\/p>
<\/a><\/div><\/li>12\/03\/2013 - Response to the LSB Consultation on its Draft Business Plan 2013<\/a><\/h2>\r\nResponse to the LSB Consultation on its Draft Business Plan 2013<\/p>
<\/a><\/div><\/li>11\/03\/2013 - Minutes of Meeting held in February 2013<\/a><\/h2>\r\nMinutes of Meeting held in February 2013<\/p>
<\/a><\/div><\/li>22\/01\/2013 - Response to SRA Consultation on Co-operation Agreements<\/a><\/h2>\r\nResponse to SRA Consultation on Co-operation Agreements<\/p>
<\/a><\/div><\/li>15\/08\/2012 - Response to SRA consultation on The Future of Authorised Professional Firms<\/a><\/h2>\r\nResponse to SRA consultation on The Future of Authorised Professional Firms<\/p>
<\/a><\/div><\/li>12\/04\/2012 - Response to HMG Consultation on Introducing a Statutory Register of Lobbyists<\/a><\/h2>\r\nResponse to HMG Consultation on Introducing a Statutory Register of Lobbyists<\/p>
<\/a><\/div><\/li>14\/02\/2012 - Response to the SRA's<\/a><\/h2>\r\nResponse to the SRA's \"Regulation of International Practice\" Consultation<\/p>
<\/a><\/div><\/li>17\/01\/2012 - Response to SRA consultation \u201cSRA financial protection review\u201d<\/a><\/h2>\r\nResponse to SRA consultation \u201cSRA financial protection review\u201d<\/p>
<\/a><\/div><\/li>17\/01\/2012 - Minutes of the Meeting held in December 2011<\/a><\/h2>\r\nMinutes of the Meeting held in December 2011<\/p>
<\/a><\/div><\/li>26\/10\/2011 - Minutes from Meeting held in June 2011<\/a><\/h2>\r\nMinutes from Meeting held in June 2011<\/p>
<\/a><\/div><\/li>11\/07\/2011 - Response to SRA Consultation<\/a><\/h2>\r\nResponse to SRA Consultation \"Alternative Business Structures Fee Structure\"<\/p>
<\/a><\/div><\/li>26\/04\/2011 - Response to SRA Consultation<\/a><\/h2>\r\nResponse to SRA Consultation \"Future Client Financial Protection Arrangements\" <\/p>
<\/a><\/div><\/li>28\/02\/2011 - CLLS Response to the SRA Architecture of Change Part 2 Consultation<\/a><\/h2>\r\nCLLS Response to the SRA Architecture of Change Part 2 Consultation<\/p>
<\/a><\/div><\/li>28\/01\/2015 - Response to SRA Consultation on Proportionate Regulation: reporting accountant requirements<\/a><\/h2>\r\n<\/p>
<\/a><\/div><\/li>17\/12\/2014 - Response to Consultation on SRA's Regulation of Consumer Credit Activities<\/a><\/h2>\r\n<\/p>
<\/a><\/div><\/li>16\/12\/2014 - Response to the SRA's Consultation on Overseas Accounts Rules<\/a><\/h2>\r\n<\/p>
<\/a><\/div><\/li>03\/07\/2014 - Response to further SRA consultation on proposed changes to the registered European lawyer regime<\/a><\/h2>\r\nThe Committee responded to the SRA\u2019s further consultation on its proposed amendments to the Handbook. The response commented specifically on the proposal to apply the conduct provisions to solicitors within foreign firms in the same way as it was proposed they would apply to RELs within an EEP.\r\n\r\n<\/p>
<\/a><\/div><\/li>03\/07\/2014 - Response to SRA Consultation Paper on Multi-Disciplinary Practices<\/a><\/h2>\r\nThe consultation sought views on policy changes and associated amendments to the SRA Handbook which were aimed at achieving a proportionate regulatory framework for the authorisation and supervision of multi-disciplinary alternative business structures providing legal and non\u2013legal services. One driver behind the consultation was the SRA\u2019s concern that some of the rules in the SRA Handbook may have become an impediment to the effective licensing and regulation of some licensed bodies; and in particular, those rules that require all legal activity within an SRA authorised MDP to be SRA regulated. The CLLS response argued that if non-Reserved activity is not regulated when it is carried out by a non-Authorised person, then it need not be regulated when it is carried out by a better-qualified Authorised Person. The CLLS argued that this regulatory asymmetry means that solicitors, as Authorised Persons, are commercially disadvantaged in comparison with non-Authorised Persons, when doing the same tasks. The CLLS response raised some further concerns, (including the fact that the SRA\u2019s regulatory proposals in this area do not appear to be based on a comprehensive risk analysis of the field), and responded to the specific consultation questions. <\/p>
<\/a><\/div><\/li>23\/06\/2014 - Response to SRA consultation: Proportionate regulation - changes to minimum compulsory professional indemnity cover<\/a><\/h2>\r\nThis consultation paper contained proposals which the SRA stated were aimed at reducing the regulatory burden, providing targeted regulation and increasing competition. The proposals form part of a wider SRA review of the scope of cover under the Minimum Terms and Conditions. The CLLS submission in response supported in principle the idea of reducing the insurance costs burden in a manner which would allow firms to consider the appropriate level of cover they need (subject to a mandatory minimum). However, it expressed the view that the SRA needs to have consulted with the insurers before making specific proposals. It went on to state that the consultation paper had adduced no evidence that the proposals would in fact attract the costs reductions they are aiming for, and that a reduction in the minimum insurance requirement may well have no effect on the premiums charged by insurance companies. It stressed the need for the proposals to be evidence-based, and strongly recommended that any reform be delayed until the 2015 renewal.<\/p>
<\/a><\/div><\/li>20\/06\/2014 - Response to SRA consultation: Compensation Arrangements Review - the introduction of an eligibility criteria<\/a><\/h2>\r\nThe consultation invited views on the SRA\u2019s arrangements for compensating clients who suffer financial loss due to dishonesty, failure to account or civil liability of uninsured practitioners. The CLLS submission responded to the specific consultation questions. The submission also expressed, more generally, a concern that the SRA was consulting on an important topic that may have significant implications, in particular for consumers who do suffer losses, without explaining (i) clearly what has driven the proposal or (ii) providing supporting evidence, that only the SRA can provide, about the impact of the proposal.<\/p>
<\/a><\/div><\/li>19\/06\/2014 - Response to SRA consultation on Proportionate regulation: changes to reporting accounting requirements<\/a><\/h2>\r\nThis consultation paper contained two proposals: removal of the mandatory requirement that firms must submit an annual accountant's report to the SRA, and requiring COFAs to sign a declaration that they are satisfied that their respective firms are managing their client accounts in accordance with the SRA Account Rules. The proposals form part of an SRA programme to reform its regulatory regime \u201cto reduce unnecessary burdens and provide flexibility of approach to deliver good financial management\u201d. The submission responded to the specific consultation questions, and argued more generally that the consultation was premature, and that no changes should be made to the current reporting accountant regime until such time as the general review of the SRA accounts rules had been completed. <\/p>
<\/a><\/div><\/li>02\/06\/2014 - Response to SRA consultation \u201cAnnual keeping of the roll exercise\u201d<\/a><\/h2>\r\nThe consultation sought views on proposals to remove \u201cthe unnecessary and over burdensome process which requires solicitors who do not hold practising certificates to complete a yearly online application and pay a fee if they wish their name to remain on the roll of solicitors\u201d. The Submission broadly agreed with the consultation proposal to stop the annual updating process while keeping the power for the SRA to carry out updates when it thinks these are needed. It also broadly agreed with the proposal\u2019s expressed purpose, being \u2018to remove the unnecessary and burdensome process\u2019 involved with solicitors who do not have Practising Certificates (\u2018PCs\u2019) having to renew their roll applications annually. However, the Submission also raised concerns about the failure of the Consultation Paper to address the impact of remaining on the roll in any detail, including in relation to the status of undertakings given by non-practising solicitors who remain on the roll. It also raised concerns about some of the consequences that might arise were the annual updating process to be dispensed with. <\/p>
<\/a><\/div><\/li>02\/06\/2014 - Response to SRA consultation \u201cRed Tape Initiative: Residual client balances\u201d<\/a><\/h2>\r\nThe consultation sought views on proposals to amend the SRA Account Rules 2011 relating to how practitioners deal with client money they are unable to return to clients at the end of a matter (residual client balances), including the processes surrounding the withdrawal of such funds and the basis for distribution to charities. The Submission in response noted that the CLLS supports a proposal to increase the level at which practitioners can self-certify transfers of residual client balances, although it noted that there are differing views within the CLLS about the level at which SRA authorisation should be required. The submission also expressed concern that a significant increase in the self-certification level should be balanced by appropriate but proportional checks and balances. Furthermore, it agreed with the SRA\u2019s view that it ought not to restrict the charities to which residual balances should be transferred. <\/p>
<\/a><\/div><\/li>15\/04\/2014 - Proposed Changes in the Registered European Lawyer Regime<\/a><\/h2>\r\n<\/p>
<\/a><\/div><\/li>11\/02\/2014 - Response to LSB consultation on its draft 2014\/15 Business Plan<\/a><\/h2>\r\nThe response highlighted the amount that the City firms pay annually towards the regulatory and \u2018permitted purposes\u2019 costs of the legal sector, and expressed concern about the absence of the item \u201cMapping the Unregulated Market\u201d from the LSB\u2019s planned research programme. The response called on the LSB to answer a question that it had posed in an earlier consultation (\u201cEnhancing consumer protection, reducing regulatory restrictions\u201d) namely \u201cthere is a question about the relative balance of regulatory focus. Is the current balance of regulation right or are there areas where deregulation may be appropriate?\u2019\u201c\r\n\r\n\r\n<\/p>
<\/a><\/div><\/li>11\/02\/2014 - Response to SRA consultation: Proposal to increase the SRA's internal fining powers<\/a><\/h2>\r\nThe consultation paper invited views on the SRA\u2019s proposal to increase the current level of its fining powers for \u2018traditional\u2019 firms (i.e. non-ABS firms) from the current level of \u00a32,000, and to enable the SRA to agree (rather than impose) fines of a more significant amount with the regulated person concerned under its existing policy of agreeing the outcome of an investigation under its Regulatory Settlements Agreements policy. The response commented in detail on the consultation proposals, and questioned the consultation paper\u2019s presumption that the disciplinary regime that currently applies to ABS firms should be extended to all regulated firms. <\/p>
<\/a><\/div><\/li>26\/11\/2013 - Response to LSB consultation on Chairs of regulatory bodies: Consultation on an amendment to the Internal Governance Rules to require that the Chairs of the Boards of the regulatory arms of each applicable approved regulator be a lay person.<\/a><\/h2>\r\nThe consultation paper focussed on a proposed amendment to the Internal Governance Rules to require that the Chairs of the Boards of the regulatory arms of each \u201capplicable approved regulator\u201d be a lay person. In its response, the Committee raised a number of points, including that it saw \u201clittle merit in a rule change which necessarily narrows the field of candidates for the role of Chair of these bodies, where no evidence is given to show that the presence of a non-lay Chair has meaningfully impeded the independence of the regulator\u201d.<\/p>
<\/a><\/div><\/li>09\/09\/2013 - Review of the Legal Services Regulatory Framework: CLLS Submission to the Ministry of Justice<\/a><\/h2>\r\nReview of the Legal Services Regulatory Framework: CLLS Submission to the Ministry of Justice.<\/p>
<\/a><\/div><\/li>13\/08\/2013 - Response to Committee on Standards in Public Life Consultation on Lobbying Issues and Questions<\/a><\/h2>\r\n<\/p>
<\/a><\/div><\/li>24\/07\/2013 - Minutes of Meeting held in June 2013<\/a><\/h2>\r\nMinutes of Meeting held in June 2013<\/p>
<\/a><\/div><\/li>08\/07\/2013 - Response to SRA Consultation on New Overseas Rules<\/a><\/h2>\r\nResponse to SRA Consultation on New Overseas Rules<\/p>
<\/a><\/div><\/li>07\/07\/2013 - Response to SRA Consultation on New Overseas Rules \u2013 Comments on Annexes<\/a><\/h2>\r\nResponse to SRA Consultation on New Overseas Rules \u2013 Comments on Annexes<\/p>
<\/a><\/div><\/li>04\/07\/2013 - Response to SRA consultation Red Tape Initiative Phase 2: Removing unnecessary regulations and simplifying processes<\/a><\/h2>\r\nResponse to SRA consultation Red Tape Initiative Phase 2: Removing unnecessary regulations and simplifying processes<\/p>
<\/a><\/div><\/li>19\/04\/2013 - Response to SRA consultation: Indicative guidance on financial penalties<\/a><\/h2>\r\nResponse to SRA consultation: Indicative guidance on financial penalties<\/p>
<\/a><\/div><\/li>25\/03\/2013 - Response to SRA Consultation on Handbook Amendments Relating to International<\/a><\/h2>\r\nResponse to SRA Consultation on Handbook Amendments Relating to International Practice <\/p>
<\/a><\/div><\/li>12\/03\/2013 - Response to the LSB Consultation on its Draft Business Plan 2013<\/a><\/h2>\r\nResponse to the LSB Consultation on its Draft Business Plan 2013<\/p>
<\/a><\/div><\/li>11\/03\/2013 - Minutes of Meeting held in February 2013<\/a><\/h2>\r\nMinutes of Meeting held in February 2013<\/p>
<\/a><\/div><\/li>22\/01\/2013 - Response to SRA Consultation on Co-operation Agreements<\/a><\/h2>\r\nResponse to SRA Consultation on Co-operation Agreements<\/p>
<\/a><\/div><\/li>15\/08\/2012 - Response to SRA consultation on The Future of Authorised Professional Firms<\/a><\/h2>\r\nResponse to SRA consultation on The Future of Authorised Professional Firms<\/p>
<\/a><\/div><\/li>12\/04\/2012 - Response to HMG Consultation on Introducing a Statutory Register of Lobbyists<\/a><\/h2>\r\nResponse to HMG Consultation on Introducing a Statutory Register of Lobbyists<\/p>
<\/a><\/div><\/li>14\/02\/2012 - Response to the SRA's<\/a><\/h2>\r\nResponse to the SRA's \"Regulation of International Practice\" Consultation<\/p>
<\/a><\/div><\/li>17\/01\/2012 - Response to SRA consultation \u201cSRA financial protection review\u201d<\/a><\/h2>\r\nResponse to SRA consultation \u201cSRA financial protection review\u201d<\/p>
<\/a><\/div><\/li>17\/01\/2012 - Minutes of the Meeting held in December 2011<\/a><\/h2>\r\nMinutes of the Meeting held in December 2011<\/p>
<\/a><\/div><\/li>26\/10\/2011 - Minutes from Meeting held in June 2011<\/a><\/h2>\r\nMinutes from Meeting held in June 2011<\/p>
<\/a><\/div><\/li>11\/07\/2011 - Response to SRA Consultation<\/a><\/h2>\r\nResponse to SRA Consultation \"Alternative Business Structures Fee Structure\"<\/p>
<\/a><\/div><\/li>26\/04\/2011 - Response to SRA Consultation<\/a><\/h2>\r\nResponse to SRA Consultation \"Future Client Financial Protection Arrangements\" <\/p>
<\/a><\/div><\/li>28\/02\/2011 - CLLS Response to the SRA Architecture of Change Part 2 Consultation<\/a><\/h2>\r\nCLLS Response to the SRA Architecture of Change Part 2 Consultation<\/p>
<\/a><\/div><\/li>17\/12\/2014 - Response to Consultation on SRA's Regulation of Consumer Credit Activities<\/a><\/h2>\r\n<\/p>
<\/a><\/div><\/li>16\/12\/2014 - Response to the SRA's Consultation on Overseas Accounts Rules<\/a><\/h2>\r\n<\/p>
<\/a><\/div><\/li>03\/07\/2014 - Response to further SRA consultation on proposed changes to the registered European lawyer regime<\/a><\/h2>\r\nThe Committee responded to the SRA\u2019s further consultation on its proposed amendments to the Handbook. The response commented specifically on the proposal to apply the conduct provisions to solicitors within foreign firms in the same way as it was proposed they would apply to RELs within an EEP.\r\n\r\n<\/p>
<\/a><\/div><\/li>03\/07\/2014 - Response to SRA Consultation Paper on Multi-Disciplinary Practices<\/a><\/h2>\r\nThe consultation sought views on policy changes and associated amendments to the SRA Handbook which were aimed at achieving a proportionate regulatory framework for the authorisation and supervision of multi-disciplinary alternative business structures providing legal and non\u2013legal services. One driver behind the consultation was the SRA\u2019s concern that some of the rules in the SRA Handbook may have become an impediment to the effective licensing and regulation of some licensed bodies; and in particular, those rules that require all legal activity within an SRA authorised MDP to be SRA regulated. The CLLS response argued that if non-Reserved activity is not regulated when it is carried out by a non-Authorised person, then it need not be regulated when it is carried out by a better-qualified Authorised Person. The CLLS argued that this regulatory asymmetry means that solicitors, as Authorised Persons, are commercially disadvantaged in comparison with non-Authorised Persons, when doing the same tasks. The CLLS response raised some further concerns, (including the fact that the SRA\u2019s regulatory proposals in this area do not appear to be based on a comprehensive risk analysis of the field), and responded to the specific consultation questions. <\/p>
<\/a><\/div><\/li>23\/06\/2014 - Response to SRA consultation: Proportionate regulation - changes to minimum compulsory professional indemnity cover<\/a><\/h2>\r\nThis consultation paper contained proposals which the SRA stated were aimed at reducing the regulatory burden, providing targeted regulation and increasing competition. The proposals form part of a wider SRA review of the scope of cover under the Minimum Terms and Conditions. The CLLS submission in response supported in principle the idea of reducing the insurance costs burden in a manner which would allow firms to consider the appropriate level of cover they need (subject to a mandatory minimum). However, it expressed the view that the SRA needs to have consulted with the insurers before making specific proposals. It went on to state that the consultation paper had adduced no evidence that the proposals would in fact attract the costs reductions they are aiming for, and that a reduction in the minimum insurance requirement may well have no effect on the premiums charged by insurance companies. It stressed the need for the proposals to be evidence-based, and strongly recommended that any reform be delayed until the 2015 renewal.<\/p>
<\/a><\/div><\/li>20\/06\/2014 - Response to SRA consultation: Compensation Arrangements Review - the introduction of an eligibility criteria<\/a><\/h2>\r\nThe consultation invited views on the SRA\u2019s arrangements for compensating clients who suffer financial loss due to dishonesty, failure to account or civil liability of uninsured practitioners. The CLLS submission responded to the specific consultation questions. The submission also expressed, more generally, a concern that the SRA was consulting on an important topic that may have significant implications, in particular for consumers who do suffer losses, without explaining (i) clearly what has driven the proposal or (ii) providing supporting evidence, that only the SRA can provide, about the impact of the proposal.<\/p>
<\/a><\/div><\/li>19\/06\/2014 - Response to SRA consultation on Proportionate regulation: changes to reporting accounting requirements<\/a><\/h2>\r\nThis consultation paper contained two proposals: removal of the mandatory requirement that firms must submit an annual accountant's report to the SRA, and requiring COFAs to sign a declaration that they are satisfied that their respective firms are managing their client accounts in accordance with the SRA Account Rules. The proposals form part of an SRA programme to reform its regulatory regime \u201cto reduce unnecessary burdens and provide flexibility of approach to deliver good financial management\u201d. The submission responded to the specific consultation questions, and argued more generally that the consultation was premature, and that no changes should be made to the current reporting accountant regime until such time as the general review of the SRA accounts rules had been completed. <\/p>
<\/a><\/div><\/li>02\/06\/2014 - Response to SRA consultation \u201cAnnual keeping of the roll exercise\u201d<\/a><\/h2>\r\nThe consultation sought views on proposals to remove \u201cthe unnecessary and over burdensome process which requires solicitors who do not hold practising certificates to complete a yearly online application and pay a fee if they wish their name to remain on the roll of solicitors\u201d. The Submission broadly agreed with the consultation proposal to stop the annual updating process while keeping the power for the SRA to carry out updates when it thinks these are needed. It also broadly agreed with the proposal\u2019s expressed purpose, being \u2018to remove the unnecessary and burdensome process\u2019 involved with solicitors who do not have Practising Certificates (\u2018PCs\u2019) having to renew their roll applications annually. However, the Submission also raised concerns about the failure of the Consultation Paper to address the impact of remaining on the roll in any detail, including in relation to the status of undertakings given by non-practising solicitors who remain on the roll. It also raised concerns about some of the consequences that might arise were the annual updating process to be dispensed with. <\/p>
<\/a><\/div><\/li>02\/06\/2014 - Response to SRA consultation \u201cRed Tape Initiative: Residual client balances\u201d<\/a><\/h2>\r\nThe consultation sought views on proposals to amend the SRA Account Rules 2011 relating to how practitioners deal with client money they are unable to return to clients at the end of a matter (residual client balances), including the processes surrounding the withdrawal of such funds and the basis for distribution to charities. The Submission in response noted that the CLLS supports a proposal to increase the level at which practitioners can self-certify transfers of residual client balances, although it noted that there are differing views within the CLLS about the level at which SRA authorisation should be required. The submission also expressed concern that a significant increase in the self-certification level should be balanced by appropriate but proportional checks and balances. Furthermore, it agreed with the SRA\u2019s view that it ought not to restrict the charities to which residual balances should be transferred. <\/p>
<\/a><\/div><\/li>15\/04\/2014 - Proposed Changes in the Registered European Lawyer Regime<\/a><\/h2>\r\n<\/p>
<\/a><\/div><\/li>11\/02\/2014 - Response to LSB consultation on its draft 2014\/15 Business Plan<\/a><\/h2>\r\nThe response highlighted the amount that the City firms pay annually towards the regulatory and \u2018permitted purposes\u2019 costs of the legal sector, and expressed concern about the absence of the item \u201cMapping the Unregulated Market\u201d from the LSB\u2019s planned research programme. The response called on the LSB to answer a question that it had posed in an earlier consultation (\u201cEnhancing consumer protection, reducing regulatory restrictions\u201d) namely \u201cthere is a question about the relative balance of regulatory focus. Is the current balance of regulation right or are there areas where deregulation may be appropriate?\u2019\u201c\r\n\r\n\r\n<\/p>
<\/a><\/div><\/li>11\/02\/2014 - Response to SRA consultation: Proposal to increase the SRA's internal fining powers<\/a><\/h2>\r\nThe consultation paper invited views on the SRA\u2019s proposal to increase the current level of its fining powers for \u2018traditional\u2019 firms (i.e. non-ABS firms) from the current level of \u00a32,000, and to enable the SRA to agree (rather than impose) fines of a more significant amount with the regulated person concerned under its existing policy of agreeing the outcome of an investigation under its Regulatory Settlements Agreements policy. The response commented in detail on the consultation proposals, and questioned the consultation paper\u2019s presumption that the disciplinary regime that currently applies to ABS firms should be extended to all regulated firms. <\/p>
<\/a><\/div><\/li>26\/11\/2013 - Response to LSB consultation on Chairs of regulatory bodies: Consultation on an amendment to the Internal Governance Rules to require that the Chairs of the Boards of the regulatory arms of each applicable approved regulator be a lay person.<\/a><\/h2>\r\nThe consultation paper focussed on a proposed amendment to the Internal Governance Rules to require that the Chairs of the Boards of the regulatory arms of each \u201capplicable approved regulator\u201d be a lay person. In its response, the Committee raised a number of points, including that it saw \u201clittle merit in a rule change which necessarily narrows the field of candidates for the role of Chair of these bodies, where no evidence is given to show that the presence of a non-lay Chair has meaningfully impeded the independence of the regulator\u201d.<\/p>
<\/a><\/div><\/li>09\/09\/2013 - Review of the Legal Services Regulatory Framework: CLLS Submission to the Ministry of Justice<\/a><\/h2>\r\nReview of the Legal Services Regulatory Framework: CLLS Submission to the Ministry of Justice.<\/p>
<\/a><\/div><\/li>13\/08\/2013 - Response to Committee on Standards in Public Life Consultation on Lobbying Issues and Questions<\/a><\/h2>\r\n<\/p>
<\/a><\/div><\/li>24\/07\/2013 - Minutes of Meeting held in June 2013<\/a><\/h2>\r\nMinutes of Meeting held in June 2013<\/p>
<\/a><\/div><\/li>08\/07\/2013 - Response to SRA Consultation on New Overseas Rules<\/a><\/h2>\r\nResponse to SRA Consultation on New Overseas Rules<\/p>
<\/a><\/div><\/li>07\/07\/2013 - Response to SRA Consultation on New Overseas Rules \u2013 Comments on Annexes<\/a><\/h2>\r\nResponse to SRA Consultation on New Overseas Rules \u2013 Comments on Annexes<\/p>
<\/a><\/div><\/li>04\/07\/2013 - Response to SRA consultation Red Tape Initiative Phase 2: Removing unnecessary regulations and simplifying processes<\/a><\/h2>\r\nResponse to SRA consultation Red Tape Initiative Phase 2: Removing unnecessary regulations and simplifying processes<\/p>
<\/a><\/div><\/li>19\/04\/2013 - Response to SRA consultation: Indicative guidance on financial penalties<\/a><\/h2>\r\nResponse to SRA consultation: Indicative guidance on financial penalties<\/p>
<\/a><\/div><\/li>25\/03\/2013 - Response to SRA Consultation on Handbook Amendments Relating to International<\/a><\/h2>\r\nResponse to SRA Consultation on Handbook Amendments Relating to International Practice <\/p>
<\/a><\/div><\/li>12\/03\/2013 - Response to the LSB Consultation on its Draft Business Plan 2013<\/a><\/h2>\r\nResponse to the LSB Consultation on its Draft Business Plan 2013<\/p>
<\/a><\/div><\/li>11\/03\/2013 - Minutes of Meeting held in February 2013<\/a><\/h2>\r\nMinutes of Meeting held in February 2013<\/p>
<\/a><\/div><\/li>22\/01\/2013 - Response to SRA Consultation on Co-operation Agreements<\/a><\/h2>\r\nResponse to SRA Consultation on Co-operation Agreements<\/p>
<\/a><\/div><\/li>15\/08\/2012 - Response to SRA consultation on The Future of Authorised Professional Firms<\/a><\/h2>\r\nResponse to SRA consultation on The Future of Authorised Professional Firms<\/p>
<\/a><\/div><\/li>12\/04\/2012 - Response to HMG Consultation on Introducing a Statutory Register of Lobbyists<\/a><\/h2>\r\nResponse to HMG Consultation on Introducing a Statutory Register of Lobbyists<\/p>
<\/a><\/div><\/li>14\/02\/2012 - Response to the SRA's<\/a><\/h2>\r\nResponse to the SRA's \"Regulation of International Practice\" Consultation<\/p>
<\/a><\/div><\/li>17\/01\/2012 - Response to SRA consultation \u201cSRA financial protection review\u201d<\/a><\/h2>\r\nResponse to SRA consultation \u201cSRA financial protection review\u201d<\/p>
<\/a><\/div><\/li>17\/01\/2012 - Minutes of the Meeting held in December 2011<\/a><\/h2>\r\nMinutes of the Meeting held in December 2011<\/p>
<\/a><\/div><\/li>26\/10\/2011 - Minutes from Meeting held in June 2011<\/a><\/h2>\r\nMinutes from Meeting held in June 2011<\/p>
<\/a><\/div><\/li>11\/07\/2011 - Response to SRA Consultation<\/a><\/h2>\r\nResponse to SRA Consultation \"Alternative Business Structures Fee Structure\"<\/p>
<\/a><\/div><\/li>26\/04\/2011 - Response to SRA Consultation<\/a><\/h2>\r\nResponse to SRA Consultation \"Future Client Financial Protection Arrangements\" <\/p>
<\/a><\/div><\/li>28\/02\/2011 - CLLS Response to the SRA Architecture of Change Part 2 Consultation<\/a><\/h2>\r\nCLLS Response to the SRA Architecture of Change Part 2 Consultation<\/p>
<\/a><\/div><\/li>16\/12\/2014 - Response to the SRA's Consultation on Overseas Accounts Rules<\/a><\/h2>\r\n<\/p>
<\/a><\/div><\/li>03\/07\/2014 - Response to further SRA consultation on proposed changes to the registered European lawyer regime<\/a><\/h2>\r\nThe Committee responded to the SRA\u2019s further consultation on its proposed amendments to the Handbook. The response commented specifically on the proposal to apply the conduct provisions to solicitors within foreign firms in the same way as it was proposed they would apply to RELs within an EEP.\r\n\r\n<\/p>
<\/a><\/div><\/li>03\/07\/2014 - Response to SRA Consultation Paper on Multi-Disciplinary Practices<\/a><\/h2>\r\nThe consultation sought views on policy changes and associated amendments to the SRA Handbook which were aimed at achieving a proportionate regulatory framework for the authorisation and supervision of multi-disciplinary alternative business structures providing legal and non\u2013legal services. One driver behind the consultation was the SRA\u2019s concern that some of the rules in the SRA Handbook may have become an impediment to the effective licensing and regulation of some licensed bodies; and in particular, those rules that require all legal activity within an SRA authorised MDP to be SRA regulated. The CLLS response argued that if non-Reserved activity is not regulated when it is carried out by a non-Authorised person, then it need not be regulated when it is carried out by a better-qualified Authorised Person. The CLLS argued that this regulatory asymmetry means that solicitors, as Authorised Persons, are commercially disadvantaged in comparison with non-Authorised Persons, when doing the same tasks. The CLLS response raised some further concerns, (including the fact that the SRA\u2019s regulatory proposals in this area do not appear to be based on a comprehensive risk analysis of the field), and responded to the specific consultation questions. <\/p>
<\/a><\/div><\/li>23\/06\/2014 - Response to SRA consultation: Proportionate regulation - changes to minimum compulsory professional indemnity cover<\/a><\/h2>\r\nThis consultation paper contained proposals which the SRA stated were aimed at reducing the regulatory burden, providing targeted regulation and increasing competition. The proposals form part of a wider SRA review of the scope of cover under the Minimum Terms and Conditions. The CLLS submission in response supported in principle the idea of reducing the insurance costs burden in a manner which would allow firms to consider the appropriate level of cover they need (subject to a mandatory minimum). However, it expressed the view that the SRA needs to have consulted with the insurers before making specific proposals. It went on to state that the consultation paper had adduced no evidence that the proposals would in fact attract the costs reductions they are aiming for, and that a reduction in the minimum insurance requirement may well have no effect on the premiums charged by insurance companies. It stressed the need for the proposals to be evidence-based, and strongly recommended that any reform be delayed until the 2015 renewal.<\/p>
<\/a><\/div><\/li>20\/06\/2014 - Response to SRA consultation: Compensation Arrangements Review - the introduction of an eligibility criteria<\/a><\/h2>\r\nThe consultation invited views on the SRA\u2019s arrangements for compensating clients who suffer financial loss due to dishonesty, failure to account or civil liability of uninsured practitioners. The CLLS submission responded to the specific consultation questions. The submission also expressed, more generally, a concern that the SRA was consulting on an important topic that may have significant implications, in particular for consumers who do suffer losses, without explaining (i) clearly what has driven the proposal or (ii) providing supporting evidence, that only the SRA can provide, about the impact of the proposal.<\/p>
<\/a><\/div><\/li>19\/06\/2014 - Response to SRA consultation on Proportionate regulation: changes to reporting accounting requirements<\/a><\/h2>\r\nThis consultation paper contained two proposals: removal of the mandatory requirement that firms must submit an annual accountant's report to the SRA, and requiring COFAs to sign a declaration that they are satisfied that their respective firms are managing their client accounts in accordance with the SRA Account Rules. The proposals form part of an SRA programme to reform its regulatory regime \u201cto reduce unnecessary burdens and provide flexibility of approach to deliver good financial management\u201d. The submission responded to the specific consultation questions, and argued more generally that the consultation was premature, and that no changes should be made to the current reporting accountant regime until such time as the general review of the SRA accounts rules had been completed. <\/p>
<\/a><\/div><\/li>02\/06\/2014 - Response to SRA consultation \u201cAnnual keeping of the roll exercise\u201d<\/a><\/h2>\r\nThe consultation sought views on proposals to remove \u201cthe unnecessary and over burdensome process which requires solicitors who do not hold practising certificates to complete a yearly online application and pay a fee if they wish their name to remain on the roll of solicitors\u201d. The Submission broadly agreed with the consultation proposal to stop the annual updating process while keeping the power for the SRA to carry out updates when it thinks these are needed. It also broadly agreed with the proposal\u2019s expressed purpose, being \u2018to remove the unnecessary and burdensome process\u2019 involved with solicitors who do not have Practising Certificates (\u2018PCs\u2019) having to renew their roll applications annually. However, the Submission also raised concerns about the failure of the Consultation Paper to address the impact of remaining on the roll in any detail, including in relation to the status of undertakings given by non-practising solicitors who remain on the roll. It also raised concerns about some of the consequences that might arise were the annual updating process to be dispensed with. <\/p>
<\/a><\/div><\/li>02\/06\/2014 - Response to SRA consultation \u201cRed Tape Initiative: Residual client balances\u201d<\/a><\/h2>\r\nThe consultation sought views on proposals to amend the SRA Account Rules 2011 relating to how practitioners deal with client money they are unable to return to clients at the end of a matter (residual client balances), including the processes surrounding the withdrawal of such funds and the basis for distribution to charities. The Submission in response noted that the CLLS supports a proposal to increase the level at which practitioners can self-certify transfers of residual client balances, although it noted that there are differing views within the CLLS about the level at which SRA authorisation should be required. The submission also expressed concern that a significant increase in the self-certification level should be balanced by appropriate but proportional checks and balances. Furthermore, it agreed with the SRA\u2019s view that it ought not to restrict the charities to which residual balances should be transferred. <\/p>
<\/a><\/div><\/li>15\/04\/2014 - Proposed Changes in the Registered European Lawyer Regime<\/a><\/h2>\r\n<\/p>
<\/a><\/div><\/li>11\/02\/2014 - Response to LSB consultation on its draft 2014\/15 Business Plan<\/a><\/h2>\r\nThe response highlighted the amount that the City firms pay annually towards the regulatory and \u2018permitted purposes\u2019 costs of the legal sector, and expressed concern about the absence of the item \u201cMapping the Unregulated Market\u201d from the LSB\u2019s planned research programme. The response called on the LSB to answer a question that it had posed in an earlier consultation (\u201cEnhancing consumer protection, reducing regulatory restrictions\u201d) namely \u201cthere is a question about the relative balance of regulatory focus. Is the current balance of regulation right or are there areas where deregulation may be appropriate?\u2019\u201c\r\n\r\n\r\n<\/p>
<\/a><\/div><\/li>11\/02\/2014 - Response to SRA consultation: Proposal to increase the SRA's internal fining powers<\/a><\/h2>\r\nThe consultation paper invited views on the SRA\u2019s proposal to increase the current level of its fining powers for \u2018traditional\u2019 firms (i.e. non-ABS firms) from the current level of \u00a32,000, and to enable the SRA to agree (rather than impose) fines of a more significant amount with the regulated person concerned under its existing policy of agreeing the outcome of an investigation under its Regulatory Settlements Agreements policy. The response commented in detail on the consultation proposals, and questioned the consultation paper\u2019s presumption that the disciplinary regime that currently applies to ABS firms should be extended to all regulated firms. <\/p>
<\/a><\/div><\/li>26\/11\/2013 - Response to LSB consultation on Chairs of regulatory bodies: Consultation on an amendment to the Internal Governance Rules to require that the Chairs of the Boards of the regulatory arms of each applicable approved regulator be a lay person.<\/a><\/h2>\r\nThe consultation paper focussed on a proposed amendment to the Internal Governance Rules to require that the Chairs of the Boards of the regulatory arms of each \u201capplicable approved regulator\u201d be a lay person. In its response, the Committee raised a number of points, including that it saw \u201clittle merit in a rule change which necessarily narrows the field of candidates for the role of Chair of these bodies, where no evidence is given to show that the presence of a non-lay Chair has meaningfully impeded the independence of the regulator\u201d.<\/p>
<\/a><\/div><\/li>09\/09\/2013 - Review of the Legal Services Regulatory Framework: CLLS Submission to the Ministry of Justice<\/a><\/h2>\r\nReview of the Legal Services Regulatory Framework: CLLS Submission to the Ministry of Justice.<\/p>
<\/a><\/div><\/li>13\/08\/2013 - Response to Committee on Standards in Public Life Consultation on Lobbying Issues and Questions<\/a><\/h2>\r\n<\/p>
<\/a><\/div><\/li>24\/07\/2013 - Minutes of Meeting held in June 2013<\/a><\/h2>\r\nMinutes of Meeting held in June 2013<\/p>
<\/a><\/div><\/li>08\/07\/2013 - Response to SRA Consultation on New Overseas Rules<\/a><\/h2>\r\nResponse to SRA Consultation on New Overseas Rules<\/p>
<\/a><\/div><\/li>07\/07\/2013 - Response to SRA Consultation on New Overseas Rules \u2013 Comments on Annexes<\/a><\/h2>\r\nResponse to SRA Consultation on New Overseas Rules \u2013 Comments on Annexes<\/p>
<\/a><\/div><\/li>04\/07\/2013 - Response to SRA consultation Red Tape Initiative Phase 2: Removing unnecessary regulations and simplifying processes<\/a><\/h2>\r\nResponse to SRA consultation Red Tape Initiative Phase 2: Removing unnecessary regulations and simplifying processes<\/p>
<\/a><\/div><\/li>19\/04\/2013 - Response to SRA consultation: Indicative guidance on financial penalties<\/a><\/h2>\r\nResponse to SRA consultation: Indicative guidance on financial penalties<\/p>
<\/a><\/div><\/li>25\/03\/2013 - Response to SRA Consultation on Handbook Amendments Relating to International<\/a><\/h2>\r\nResponse to SRA Consultation on Handbook Amendments Relating to International Practice <\/p>
<\/a><\/div><\/li>12\/03\/2013 - Response to the LSB Consultation on its Draft Business Plan 2013<\/a><\/h2>\r\nResponse to the LSB Consultation on its Draft Business Plan 2013<\/p>
<\/a><\/div><\/li>11\/03\/2013 - Minutes of Meeting held in February 2013<\/a><\/h2>\r\nMinutes of Meeting held in February 2013<\/p>
<\/a><\/div><\/li>22\/01\/2013 - Response to SRA Consultation on Co-operation Agreements<\/a><\/h2>\r\nResponse to SRA Consultation on Co-operation Agreements<\/p>
<\/a><\/div><\/li>15\/08\/2012 - Response to SRA consultation on The Future of Authorised Professional Firms<\/a><\/h2>\r\nResponse to SRA consultation on The Future of Authorised Professional Firms<\/p>
<\/a><\/div><\/li>12\/04\/2012 - Response to HMG Consultation on Introducing a Statutory Register of Lobbyists<\/a><\/h2>\r\nResponse to HMG Consultation on Introducing a Statutory Register of Lobbyists<\/p>
<\/a><\/div><\/li>14\/02\/2012 - Response to the SRA's<\/a><\/h2>\r\nResponse to the SRA's \"Regulation of International Practice\" Consultation<\/p>
<\/a><\/div><\/li>17\/01\/2012 - Response to SRA consultation \u201cSRA financial protection review\u201d<\/a><\/h2>\r\nResponse to SRA consultation \u201cSRA financial protection review\u201d<\/p>
<\/a><\/div><\/li>17\/01\/2012 - Minutes of the Meeting held in December 2011<\/a><\/h2>\r\nMinutes of the Meeting held in December 2011<\/p>
<\/a><\/div><\/li>26\/10\/2011 - Minutes from Meeting held in June 2011<\/a><\/h2>\r\nMinutes from Meeting held in June 2011<\/p>
<\/a><\/div><\/li>11\/07\/2011 - Response to SRA Consultation<\/a><\/h2>\r\nResponse to SRA Consultation \"Alternative Business Structures Fee Structure\"<\/p>
<\/a><\/div><\/li>26\/04\/2011 - Response to SRA Consultation<\/a><\/h2>\r\nResponse to SRA Consultation \"Future Client Financial Protection Arrangements\" <\/p>
<\/a><\/div><\/li>28\/02\/2011 - CLLS Response to the SRA Architecture of Change Part 2 Consultation<\/a><\/h2>\r\nCLLS Response to the SRA Architecture of Change Part 2 Consultation<\/p>
<\/a><\/div><\/li>03\/07\/2014 - Response to further SRA consultation on proposed changes to the registered European lawyer regime<\/a><\/h2>\r\nThe Committee responded to the SRA\u2019s further consultation on its proposed amendments to the Handbook. The response commented specifically on the proposal to apply the conduct provisions to solicitors within foreign firms in the same way as it was proposed they would apply to RELs within an EEP.\r\n\r\n<\/p>
<\/a><\/div><\/li>03\/07\/2014 - Response to SRA Consultation Paper on Multi-Disciplinary Practices<\/a><\/h2>\r\nThe consultation sought views on policy changes and associated amendments to the SRA Handbook which were aimed at achieving a proportionate regulatory framework for the authorisation and supervision of multi-disciplinary alternative business structures providing legal and non\u2013legal services. One driver behind the consultation was the SRA\u2019s concern that some of the rules in the SRA Handbook may have become an impediment to the effective licensing and regulation of some licensed bodies; and in particular, those rules that require all legal activity within an SRA authorised MDP to be SRA regulated. The CLLS response argued that if non-Reserved activity is not regulated when it is carried out by a non-Authorised person, then it need not be regulated when it is carried out by a better-qualified Authorised Person. The CLLS argued that this regulatory asymmetry means that solicitors, as Authorised Persons, are commercially disadvantaged in comparison with non-Authorised Persons, when doing the same tasks. The CLLS response raised some further concerns, (including the fact that the SRA\u2019s regulatory proposals in this area do not appear to be based on a comprehensive risk analysis of the field), and responded to the specific consultation questions. <\/p>
<\/a><\/div><\/li>23\/06\/2014 - Response to SRA consultation: Proportionate regulation - changes to minimum compulsory professional indemnity cover<\/a><\/h2>\r\nThis consultation paper contained proposals which the SRA stated were aimed at reducing the regulatory burden, providing targeted regulation and increasing competition. The proposals form part of a wider SRA review of the scope of cover under the Minimum Terms and Conditions. The CLLS submission in response supported in principle the idea of reducing the insurance costs burden in a manner which would allow firms to consider the appropriate level of cover they need (subject to a mandatory minimum). However, it expressed the view that the SRA needs to have consulted with the insurers before making specific proposals. It went on to state that the consultation paper had adduced no evidence that the proposals would in fact attract the costs reductions they are aiming for, and that a reduction in the minimum insurance requirement may well have no effect on the premiums charged by insurance companies. It stressed the need for the proposals to be evidence-based, and strongly recommended that any reform be delayed until the 2015 renewal.<\/p>
<\/a><\/div><\/li>20\/06\/2014 - Response to SRA consultation: Compensation Arrangements Review - the introduction of an eligibility criteria<\/a><\/h2>\r\nThe consultation invited views on the SRA\u2019s arrangements for compensating clients who suffer financial loss due to dishonesty, failure to account or civil liability of uninsured practitioners. The CLLS submission responded to the specific consultation questions. The submission also expressed, more generally, a concern that the SRA was consulting on an important topic that may have significant implications, in particular for consumers who do suffer losses, without explaining (i) clearly what has driven the proposal or (ii) providing supporting evidence, that only the SRA can provide, about the impact of the proposal.<\/p>
<\/a><\/div><\/li>19\/06\/2014 - Response to SRA consultation on Proportionate regulation: changes to reporting accounting requirements<\/a><\/h2>\r\nThis consultation paper contained two proposals: removal of the mandatory requirement that firms must submit an annual accountant's report to the SRA, and requiring COFAs to sign a declaration that they are satisfied that their respective firms are managing their client accounts in accordance with the SRA Account Rules. The proposals form part of an SRA programme to reform its regulatory regime \u201cto reduce unnecessary burdens and provide flexibility of approach to deliver good financial management\u201d. The submission responded to the specific consultation questions, and argued more generally that the consultation was premature, and that no changes should be made to the current reporting accountant regime until such time as the general review of the SRA accounts rules had been completed. <\/p>
<\/a><\/div><\/li>02\/06\/2014 - Response to SRA consultation \u201cAnnual keeping of the roll exercise\u201d<\/a><\/h2>\r\nThe consultation sought views on proposals to remove \u201cthe unnecessary and over burdensome process which requires solicitors who do not hold practising certificates to complete a yearly online application and pay a fee if they wish their name to remain on the roll of solicitors\u201d. The Submission broadly agreed with the consultation proposal to stop the annual updating process while keeping the power for the SRA to carry out updates when it thinks these are needed. It also broadly agreed with the proposal\u2019s expressed purpose, being \u2018to remove the unnecessary and burdensome process\u2019 involved with solicitors who do not have Practising Certificates (\u2018PCs\u2019) having to renew their roll applications annually. However, the Submission also raised concerns about the failure of the Consultation Paper to address the impact of remaining on the roll in any detail, including in relation to the status of undertakings given by non-practising solicitors who remain on the roll. It also raised concerns about some of the consequences that might arise were the annual updating process to be dispensed with. <\/p>
<\/a><\/div><\/li>02\/06\/2014 - Response to SRA consultation \u201cRed Tape Initiative: Residual client balances\u201d<\/a><\/h2>\r\nThe consultation sought views on proposals to amend the SRA Account Rules 2011 relating to how practitioners deal with client money they are unable to return to clients at the end of a matter (residual client balances), including the processes surrounding the withdrawal of such funds and the basis for distribution to charities. The Submission in response noted that the CLLS supports a proposal to increase the level at which practitioners can self-certify transfers of residual client balances, although it noted that there are differing views within the CLLS about the level at which SRA authorisation should be required. The submission also expressed concern that a significant increase in the self-certification level should be balanced by appropriate but proportional checks and balances. Furthermore, it agreed with the SRA\u2019s view that it ought not to restrict the charities to which residual balances should be transferred. <\/p>
<\/a><\/div><\/li>15\/04\/2014 - Proposed Changes in the Registered European Lawyer Regime<\/a><\/h2>\r\n<\/p>
<\/a><\/div><\/li>11\/02\/2014 - Response to LSB consultation on its draft 2014\/15 Business Plan<\/a><\/h2>\r\nThe response highlighted the amount that the City firms pay annually towards the regulatory and \u2018permitted purposes\u2019 costs of the legal sector, and expressed concern about the absence of the item \u201cMapping the Unregulated Market\u201d from the LSB\u2019s planned research programme. The response called on the LSB to answer a question that it had posed in an earlier consultation (\u201cEnhancing consumer protection, reducing regulatory restrictions\u201d) namely \u201cthere is a question about the relative balance of regulatory focus. Is the current balance of regulation right or are there areas where deregulation may be appropriate?\u2019\u201c\r\n\r\n\r\n<\/p>
<\/a><\/div><\/li>11\/02\/2014 - Response to SRA consultation: Proposal to increase the SRA's internal fining powers<\/a><\/h2>\r\nThe consultation paper invited views on the SRA\u2019s proposal to increase the current level of its fining powers for \u2018traditional\u2019 firms (i.e. non-ABS firms) from the current level of \u00a32,000, and to enable the SRA to agree (rather than impose) fines of a more significant amount with the regulated person concerned under its existing policy of agreeing the outcome of an investigation under its Regulatory Settlements Agreements policy. The response commented in detail on the consultation proposals, and questioned the consultation paper\u2019s presumption that the disciplinary regime that currently applies to ABS firms should be extended to all regulated firms. <\/p>
<\/a><\/div><\/li>26\/11\/2013 - Response to LSB consultation on Chairs of regulatory bodies: Consultation on an amendment to the Internal Governance Rules to require that the Chairs of the Boards of the regulatory arms of each applicable approved regulator be a lay person.<\/a><\/h2>\r\nThe consultation paper focussed on a proposed amendment to the Internal Governance Rules to require that the Chairs of the Boards of the regulatory arms of each \u201capplicable approved regulator\u201d be a lay person. In its response, the Committee raised a number of points, including that it saw \u201clittle merit in a rule change which necessarily narrows the field of candidates for the role of Chair of these bodies, where no evidence is given to show that the presence of a non-lay Chair has meaningfully impeded the independence of the regulator\u201d.<\/p>
<\/a><\/div><\/li>09\/09\/2013 - Review of the Legal Services Regulatory Framework: CLLS Submission to the Ministry of Justice<\/a><\/h2>\r\nReview of the Legal Services Regulatory Framework: CLLS Submission to the Ministry of Justice.<\/p>
<\/a><\/div><\/li>13\/08\/2013 - Response to Committee on Standards in Public Life Consultation on Lobbying Issues and Questions<\/a><\/h2>\r\n<\/p>
<\/a><\/div><\/li>24\/07\/2013 - Minutes of Meeting held in June 2013<\/a><\/h2>\r\nMinutes of Meeting held in June 2013<\/p>
<\/a><\/div><\/li>08\/07\/2013 - Response to SRA Consultation on New Overseas Rules<\/a><\/h2>\r\nResponse to SRA Consultation on New Overseas Rules<\/p>
<\/a><\/div><\/li>07\/07\/2013 - Response to SRA Consultation on New Overseas Rules \u2013 Comments on Annexes<\/a><\/h2>\r\nResponse to SRA Consultation on New Overseas Rules \u2013 Comments on Annexes<\/p>
<\/a><\/div><\/li>04\/07\/2013 - Response to SRA consultation Red Tape Initiative Phase 2: Removing unnecessary regulations and simplifying processes<\/a><\/h2>\r\nResponse to SRA consultation Red Tape Initiative Phase 2: Removing unnecessary regulations and simplifying processes<\/p>
<\/a><\/div><\/li>19\/04\/2013 - Response to SRA consultation: Indicative guidance on financial penalties<\/a><\/h2>\r\nResponse to SRA consultation: Indicative guidance on financial penalties<\/p>
<\/a><\/div><\/li>25\/03\/2013 - Response to SRA Consultation on Handbook Amendments Relating to International<\/a><\/h2>\r\nResponse to SRA Consultation on Handbook Amendments Relating to International Practice <\/p>
<\/a><\/div><\/li>12\/03\/2013 - Response to the LSB Consultation on its Draft Business Plan 2013<\/a><\/h2>\r\nResponse to the LSB Consultation on its Draft Business Plan 2013<\/p>
<\/a><\/div><\/li>11\/03\/2013 - Minutes of Meeting held in February 2013<\/a><\/h2>\r\nMinutes of Meeting held in February 2013<\/p>
<\/a><\/div><\/li>22\/01\/2013 - Response to SRA Consultation on Co-operation Agreements<\/a><\/h2>\r\nResponse to SRA Consultation on Co-operation Agreements<\/p>
<\/a><\/div><\/li>15\/08\/2012 - Response to SRA consultation on The Future of Authorised Professional Firms<\/a><\/h2>\r\nResponse to SRA consultation on The Future of Authorised Professional Firms<\/p>
<\/a><\/div><\/li>12\/04\/2012 - Response to HMG Consultation on Introducing a Statutory Register of Lobbyists<\/a><\/h2>\r\nResponse to HMG Consultation on Introducing a Statutory Register of Lobbyists<\/p>
<\/a><\/div><\/li>14\/02\/2012 - Response to the SRA's<\/a><\/h2>\r\nResponse to the SRA's \"Regulation of International Practice\" Consultation<\/p>
<\/a><\/div><\/li>17\/01\/2012 - Response to SRA consultation \u201cSRA financial protection review\u201d<\/a><\/h2>\r\nResponse to SRA consultation \u201cSRA financial protection review\u201d<\/p>
<\/a><\/div><\/li>17\/01\/2012 - Minutes of the Meeting held in December 2011<\/a><\/h2>\r\nMinutes of the Meeting held in December 2011<\/p>
<\/a><\/div><\/li>26\/10\/2011 - Minutes from Meeting held in June 2011<\/a><\/h2>\r\nMinutes from Meeting held in June 2011<\/p>
<\/a><\/div><\/li>11\/07\/2011 - Response to SRA Consultation<\/a><\/h2>\r\nResponse to SRA Consultation \"Alternative Business Structures Fee Structure\"<\/p>
<\/a><\/div><\/li>26\/04\/2011 - Response to SRA Consultation<\/a><\/h2>\r\nResponse to SRA Consultation \"Future Client Financial Protection Arrangements\" <\/p>
<\/a><\/div><\/li>28\/02\/2011 - CLLS Response to the SRA Architecture of Change Part 2 Consultation<\/a><\/h2>\r\nCLLS Response to the SRA Architecture of Change Part 2 Consultation<\/p>
<\/a><\/div><\/li>03\/07\/2014 - Response to SRA Consultation Paper on Multi-Disciplinary Practices<\/a><\/h2>\r\nThe consultation sought views on policy changes and associated amendments to the SRA Handbook which were aimed at achieving a proportionate regulatory framework for the authorisation and supervision of multi-disciplinary alternative business structures providing legal and non\u2013legal services. One driver behind the consultation was the SRA\u2019s concern that some of the rules in the SRA Handbook may have become an impediment to the effective licensing and regulation of some licensed bodies; and in particular, those rules that require all legal activity within an SRA authorised MDP to be SRA regulated. The CLLS response argued that if non-Reserved activity is not regulated when it is carried out by a non-Authorised person, then it need not be regulated when it is carried out by a better-qualified Authorised Person. The CLLS argued that this regulatory asymmetry means that solicitors, as Authorised Persons, are commercially disadvantaged in comparison with non-Authorised Persons, when doing the same tasks. The CLLS response raised some further concerns, (including the fact that the SRA\u2019s regulatory proposals in this area do not appear to be based on a comprehensive risk analysis of the field), and responded to the specific consultation questions. <\/p>
<\/a><\/div><\/li>23\/06\/2014 - Response to SRA consultation: Proportionate regulation - changes to minimum compulsory professional indemnity cover<\/a><\/h2>\r\nThis consultation paper contained proposals which the SRA stated were aimed at reducing the regulatory burden, providing targeted regulation and increasing competition. The proposals form part of a wider SRA review of the scope of cover under the Minimum Terms and Conditions. The CLLS submission in response supported in principle the idea of reducing the insurance costs burden in a manner which would allow firms to consider the appropriate level of cover they need (subject to a mandatory minimum). However, it expressed the view that the SRA needs to have consulted with the insurers before making specific proposals. It went on to state that the consultation paper had adduced no evidence that the proposals would in fact attract the costs reductions they are aiming for, and that a reduction in the minimum insurance requirement may well have no effect on the premiums charged by insurance companies. It stressed the need for the proposals to be evidence-based, and strongly recommended that any reform be delayed until the 2015 renewal.<\/p>
<\/a><\/div><\/li>20\/06\/2014 - Response to SRA consultation: Compensation Arrangements Review - the introduction of an eligibility criteria<\/a><\/h2>\r\nThe consultation invited views on the SRA\u2019s arrangements for compensating clients who suffer financial loss due to dishonesty, failure to account or civil liability of uninsured practitioners. The CLLS submission responded to the specific consultation questions. The submission also expressed, more generally, a concern that the SRA was consulting on an important topic that may have significant implications, in particular for consumers who do suffer losses, without explaining (i) clearly what has driven the proposal or (ii) providing supporting evidence, that only the SRA can provide, about the impact of the proposal.<\/p>
<\/a><\/div><\/li>19\/06\/2014 - Response to SRA consultation on Proportionate regulation: changes to reporting accounting requirements<\/a><\/h2>\r\nThis consultation paper contained two proposals: removal of the mandatory requirement that firms must submit an annual accountant's report to the SRA, and requiring COFAs to sign a declaration that they are satisfied that their respective firms are managing their client accounts in accordance with the SRA Account Rules. The proposals form part of an SRA programme to reform its regulatory regime \u201cto reduce unnecessary burdens and provide flexibility of approach to deliver good financial management\u201d. The submission responded to the specific consultation questions, and argued more generally that the consultation was premature, and that no changes should be made to the current reporting accountant regime until such time as the general review of the SRA accounts rules had been completed. <\/p>
<\/a><\/div><\/li>02\/06\/2014 - Response to SRA consultation \u201cAnnual keeping of the roll exercise\u201d<\/a><\/h2>\r\nThe consultation sought views on proposals to remove \u201cthe unnecessary and over burdensome process which requires solicitors who do not hold practising certificates to complete a yearly online application and pay a fee if they wish their name to remain on the roll of solicitors\u201d. The Submission broadly agreed with the consultation proposal to stop the annual updating process while keeping the power for the SRA to carry out updates when it thinks these are needed. It also broadly agreed with the proposal\u2019s expressed purpose, being \u2018to remove the unnecessary and burdensome process\u2019 involved with solicitors who do not have Practising Certificates (\u2018PCs\u2019) having to renew their roll applications annually. However, the Submission also raised concerns about the failure of the Consultation Paper to address the impact of remaining on the roll in any detail, including in relation to the status of undertakings given by non-practising solicitors who remain on the roll. It also raised concerns about some of the consequences that might arise were the annual updating process to be dispensed with. <\/p>
<\/a><\/div><\/li>02\/06\/2014 - Response to SRA consultation \u201cRed Tape Initiative: Residual client balances\u201d<\/a><\/h2>\r\nThe consultation sought views on proposals to amend the SRA Account Rules 2011 relating to how practitioners deal with client money they are unable to return to clients at the end of a matter (residual client balances), including the processes surrounding the withdrawal of such funds and the basis for distribution to charities. The Submission in response noted that the CLLS supports a proposal to increase the level at which practitioners can self-certify transfers of residual client balances, although it noted that there are differing views within the CLLS about the level at which SRA authorisation should be required. The submission also expressed concern that a significant increase in the self-certification level should be balanced by appropriate but proportional checks and balances. Furthermore, it agreed with the SRA\u2019s view that it ought not to restrict the charities to which residual balances should be transferred. <\/p>
<\/a><\/div><\/li>15\/04\/2014 - Proposed Changes in the Registered European Lawyer Regime<\/a><\/h2>\r\n<\/p>
<\/a><\/div><\/li>11\/02\/2014 - Response to LSB consultation on its draft 2014\/15 Business Plan<\/a><\/h2>\r\nThe response highlighted the amount that the City firms pay annually towards the regulatory and \u2018permitted purposes\u2019 costs of the legal sector, and expressed concern about the absence of the item \u201cMapping the Unregulated Market\u201d from the LSB\u2019s planned research programme. The response called on the LSB to answer a question that it had posed in an earlier consultation (\u201cEnhancing consumer protection, reducing regulatory restrictions\u201d) namely \u201cthere is a question about the relative balance of regulatory focus. Is the current balance of regulation right or are there areas where deregulation may be appropriate?\u2019\u201c\r\n\r\n\r\n<\/p>
<\/a><\/div><\/li>11\/02\/2014 - Response to SRA consultation: Proposal to increase the SRA's internal fining powers<\/a><\/h2>\r\nThe consultation paper invited views on the SRA\u2019s proposal to increase the current level of its fining powers for \u2018traditional\u2019 firms (i.e. non-ABS firms) from the current level of \u00a32,000, and to enable the SRA to agree (rather than impose) fines of a more significant amount with the regulated person concerned under its existing policy of agreeing the outcome of an investigation under its Regulatory Settlements Agreements policy. The response commented in detail on the consultation proposals, and questioned the consultation paper\u2019s presumption that the disciplinary regime that currently applies to ABS firms should be extended to all regulated firms. <\/p>
<\/a><\/div><\/li>26\/11\/2013 - Response to LSB consultation on Chairs of regulatory bodies: Consultation on an amendment to the Internal Governance Rules to require that the Chairs of the Boards of the regulatory arms of each applicable approved regulator be a lay person.<\/a><\/h2>\r\nThe consultation paper focussed on a proposed amendment to the Internal Governance Rules to require that the Chairs of the Boards of the regulatory arms of each \u201capplicable approved regulator\u201d be a lay person. In its response, the Committee raised a number of points, including that it saw \u201clittle merit in a rule change which necessarily narrows the field of candidates for the role of Chair of these bodies, where no evidence is given to show that the presence of a non-lay Chair has meaningfully impeded the independence of the regulator\u201d.<\/p>
<\/a><\/div><\/li>09\/09\/2013 - Review of the Legal Services Regulatory Framework: CLLS Submission to the Ministry of Justice<\/a><\/h2>\r\nReview of the Legal Services Regulatory Framework: CLLS Submission to the Ministry of Justice.<\/p>
<\/a><\/div><\/li>13\/08\/2013 - Response to Committee on Standards in Public Life Consultation on Lobbying Issues and Questions<\/a><\/h2>\r\n<\/p>
<\/a><\/div><\/li>24\/07\/2013 - Minutes of Meeting held in June 2013<\/a><\/h2>\r\nMinutes of Meeting held in June 2013<\/p>
<\/a><\/div><\/li>08\/07\/2013 - Response to SRA Consultation on New Overseas Rules<\/a><\/h2>\r\nResponse to SRA Consultation on New Overseas Rules<\/p>
<\/a><\/div><\/li>07\/07\/2013 - Response to SRA Consultation on New Overseas Rules \u2013 Comments on Annexes<\/a><\/h2>\r\nResponse to SRA Consultation on New Overseas Rules \u2013 Comments on Annexes<\/p>
<\/a><\/div><\/li>04\/07\/2013 - Response to SRA consultation Red Tape Initiative Phase 2: Removing unnecessary regulations and simplifying processes<\/a><\/h2>\r\nResponse to SRA consultation Red Tape Initiative Phase 2: Removing unnecessary regulations and simplifying processes<\/p>
<\/a><\/div><\/li>19\/04\/2013 - Response to SRA consultation: Indicative guidance on financial penalties<\/a><\/h2>\r\nResponse to SRA consultation: Indicative guidance on financial penalties<\/p>
<\/a><\/div><\/li>25\/03\/2013 - Response to SRA Consultation on Handbook Amendments Relating to International<\/a><\/h2>\r\nResponse to SRA Consultation on Handbook Amendments Relating to International Practice <\/p>
<\/a><\/div><\/li>12\/03\/2013 - Response to the LSB Consultation on its Draft Business Plan 2013<\/a><\/h2>\r\nResponse to the LSB Consultation on its Draft Business Plan 2013<\/p>
<\/a><\/div><\/li>11\/03\/2013 - Minutes of Meeting held in February 2013<\/a><\/h2>\r\nMinutes of Meeting held in February 2013<\/p>
<\/a><\/div><\/li>22\/01\/2013 - Response to SRA Consultation on Co-operation Agreements<\/a><\/h2>\r\nResponse to SRA Consultation on Co-operation Agreements<\/p>
<\/a><\/div><\/li>15\/08\/2012 - Response to SRA consultation on The Future of Authorised Professional Firms<\/a><\/h2>\r\nResponse to SRA consultation on The Future of Authorised Professional Firms<\/p>
<\/a><\/div><\/li>12\/04\/2012 - Response to HMG Consultation on Introducing a Statutory Register of Lobbyists<\/a><\/h2>\r\nResponse to HMG Consultation on Introducing a Statutory Register of Lobbyists<\/p>
<\/a><\/div><\/li>14\/02\/2012 - Response to the SRA's<\/a><\/h2>\r\nResponse to the SRA's \"Regulation of International Practice\" Consultation<\/p>
<\/a><\/div><\/li>17\/01\/2012 - Response to SRA consultation \u201cSRA financial protection review\u201d<\/a><\/h2>\r\nResponse to SRA consultation \u201cSRA financial protection review\u201d<\/p>
<\/a><\/div><\/li>17\/01\/2012 - Minutes of the Meeting held in December 2011<\/a><\/h2>\r\nMinutes of the Meeting held in December 2011<\/p>
<\/a><\/div><\/li>26\/10\/2011 - Minutes from Meeting held in June 2011<\/a><\/h2>\r\nMinutes from Meeting held in June 2011<\/p>
<\/a><\/div><\/li>11\/07\/2011 - Response to SRA Consultation<\/a><\/h2>\r\nResponse to SRA Consultation \"Alternative Business Structures Fee Structure\"<\/p>
<\/a><\/div><\/li>26\/04\/2011 - Response to SRA Consultation<\/a><\/h2>\r\nResponse to SRA Consultation \"Future Client Financial Protection Arrangements\" <\/p>
<\/a><\/div><\/li>28\/02\/2011 - CLLS Response to the SRA Architecture of Change Part 2 Consultation<\/a><\/h2>\r\nCLLS Response to the SRA Architecture of Change Part 2 Consultation<\/p>
<\/a><\/div><\/li>23\/06\/2014 - Response to SRA consultation: Proportionate regulation - changes to minimum compulsory professional indemnity cover<\/a><\/h2>\r\nThis consultation paper contained proposals which the SRA stated were aimed at reducing the regulatory burden, providing targeted regulation and increasing competition. The proposals form part of a wider SRA review of the scope of cover under the Minimum Terms and Conditions. The CLLS submission in response supported in principle the idea of reducing the insurance costs burden in a manner which would allow firms to consider the appropriate level of cover they need (subject to a mandatory minimum). However, it expressed the view that the SRA needs to have consulted with the insurers before making specific proposals. It went on to state that the consultation paper had adduced no evidence that the proposals would in fact attract the costs reductions they are aiming for, and that a reduction in the minimum insurance requirement may well have no effect on the premiums charged by insurance companies. It stressed the need for the proposals to be evidence-based, and strongly recommended that any reform be delayed until the 2015 renewal.<\/p>
<\/a><\/div><\/li>20\/06\/2014 - Response to SRA consultation: Compensation Arrangements Review - the introduction of an eligibility criteria<\/a><\/h2>\r\nThe consultation invited views on the SRA\u2019s arrangements for compensating clients who suffer financial loss due to dishonesty, failure to account or civil liability of uninsured practitioners. The CLLS submission responded to the specific consultation questions. The submission also expressed, more generally, a concern that the SRA was consulting on an important topic that may have significant implications, in particular for consumers who do suffer losses, without explaining (i) clearly what has driven the proposal or (ii) providing supporting evidence, that only the SRA can provide, about the impact of the proposal.<\/p>
<\/a><\/div><\/li>19\/06\/2014 - Response to SRA consultation on Proportionate regulation: changes to reporting accounting requirements<\/a><\/h2>\r\nThis consultation paper contained two proposals: removal of the mandatory requirement that firms must submit an annual accountant's report to the SRA, and requiring COFAs to sign a declaration that they are satisfied that their respective firms are managing their client accounts in accordance with the SRA Account Rules. The proposals form part of an SRA programme to reform its regulatory regime \u201cto reduce unnecessary burdens and provide flexibility of approach to deliver good financial management\u201d. The submission responded to the specific consultation questions, and argued more generally that the consultation was premature, and that no changes should be made to the current reporting accountant regime until such time as the general review of the SRA accounts rules had been completed. <\/p>
<\/a><\/div><\/li>02\/06\/2014 - Response to SRA consultation \u201cAnnual keeping of the roll exercise\u201d<\/a><\/h2>\r\nThe consultation sought views on proposals to remove \u201cthe unnecessary and over burdensome process which requires solicitors who do not hold practising certificates to complete a yearly online application and pay a fee if they wish their name to remain on the roll of solicitors\u201d. The Submission broadly agreed with the consultation proposal to stop the annual updating process while keeping the power for the SRA to carry out updates when it thinks these are needed. It also broadly agreed with the proposal\u2019s expressed purpose, being \u2018to remove the unnecessary and burdensome process\u2019 involved with solicitors who do not have Practising Certificates (\u2018PCs\u2019) having to renew their roll applications annually. However, the Submission also raised concerns about the failure of the Consultation Paper to address the impact of remaining on the roll in any detail, including in relation to the status of undertakings given by non-practising solicitors who remain on the roll. It also raised concerns about some of the consequences that might arise were the annual updating process to be dispensed with. <\/p>
<\/a><\/div><\/li>02\/06\/2014 - Response to SRA consultation \u201cRed Tape Initiative: Residual client balances\u201d<\/a><\/h2>\r\nThe consultation sought views on proposals to amend the SRA Account Rules 2011 relating to how practitioners deal with client money they are unable to return to clients at the end of a matter (residual client balances), including the processes surrounding the withdrawal of such funds and the basis for distribution to charities. The Submission in response noted that the CLLS supports a proposal to increase the level at which practitioners can self-certify transfers of residual client balances, although it noted that there are differing views within the CLLS about the level at which SRA authorisation should be required. The submission also expressed concern that a significant increase in the self-certification level should be balanced by appropriate but proportional checks and balances. Furthermore, it agreed with the SRA\u2019s view that it ought not to restrict the charities to which residual balances should be transferred. <\/p>
<\/a><\/div><\/li>15\/04\/2014 - Proposed Changes in the Registered European Lawyer Regime<\/a><\/h2>\r\n<\/p>
<\/a><\/div><\/li>11\/02\/2014 - Response to LSB consultation on its draft 2014\/15 Business Plan<\/a><\/h2>\r\nThe response highlighted the amount that the City firms pay annually towards the regulatory and \u2018permitted purposes\u2019 costs of the legal sector, and expressed concern about the absence of the item \u201cMapping the Unregulated Market\u201d from the LSB\u2019s planned research programme. The response called on the LSB to answer a question that it had posed in an earlier consultation (\u201cEnhancing consumer protection, reducing regulatory restrictions\u201d) namely \u201cthere is a question about the relative balance of regulatory focus. Is the current balance of regulation right or are there areas where deregulation may be appropriate?\u2019\u201c\r\n\r\n\r\n<\/p>
<\/a><\/div><\/li>11\/02\/2014 - Response to SRA consultation: Proposal to increase the SRA's internal fining powers<\/a><\/h2>\r\nThe consultation paper invited views on the SRA\u2019s proposal to increase the current level of its fining powers for \u2018traditional\u2019 firms (i.e. non-ABS firms) from the current level of \u00a32,000, and to enable the SRA to agree (rather than impose) fines of a more significant amount with the regulated person concerned under its existing policy of agreeing the outcome of an investigation under its Regulatory Settlements Agreements policy. The response commented in detail on the consultation proposals, and questioned the consultation paper\u2019s presumption that the disciplinary regime that currently applies to ABS firms should be extended to all regulated firms. <\/p>
<\/a><\/div><\/li>26\/11\/2013 - Response to LSB consultation on Chairs of regulatory bodies: Consultation on an amendment to the Internal Governance Rules to require that the Chairs of the Boards of the regulatory arms of each applicable approved regulator be a lay person.<\/a><\/h2>\r\nThe consultation paper focussed on a proposed amendment to the Internal Governance Rules to require that the Chairs of the Boards of the regulatory arms of each \u201capplicable approved regulator\u201d be a lay person. In its response, the Committee raised a number of points, including that it saw \u201clittle merit in a rule change which necessarily narrows the field of candidates for the role of Chair of these bodies, where no evidence is given to show that the presence of a non-lay Chair has meaningfully impeded the independence of the regulator\u201d.<\/p>
<\/a><\/div><\/li>09\/09\/2013 - Review of the Legal Services Regulatory Framework: CLLS Submission to the Ministry of Justice<\/a><\/h2>\r\nReview of the Legal Services Regulatory Framework: CLLS Submission to the Ministry of Justice.<\/p>
<\/a><\/div><\/li>13\/08\/2013 - Response to Committee on Standards in Public Life Consultation on Lobbying Issues and Questions<\/a><\/h2>\r\n<\/p>
<\/a><\/div><\/li>24\/07\/2013 - Minutes of Meeting held in June 2013<\/a><\/h2>\r\nMinutes of Meeting held in June 2013<\/p>
<\/a><\/div><\/li>08\/07\/2013 - Response to SRA Consultation on New Overseas Rules<\/a><\/h2>\r\nResponse to SRA Consultation on New Overseas Rules<\/p>
<\/a><\/div><\/li>07\/07\/2013 - Response to SRA Consultation on New Overseas Rules \u2013 Comments on Annexes<\/a><\/h2>\r\nResponse to SRA Consultation on New Overseas Rules \u2013 Comments on Annexes<\/p>
<\/a><\/div><\/li>04\/07\/2013 - Response to SRA consultation Red Tape Initiative Phase 2: Removing unnecessary regulations and simplifying processes<\/a><\/h2>\r\nResponse to SRA consultation Red Tape Initiative Phase 2: Removing unnecessary regulations and simplifying processes<\/p>
<\/a><\/div><\/li>19\/04\/2013 - Response to SRA consultation: Indicative guidance on financial penalties<\/a><\/h2>\r\nResponse to SRA consultation: Indicative guidance on financial penalties<\/p>
<\/a><\/div><\/li>25\/03\/2013 - Response to SRA Consultation on Handbook Amendments Relating to International<\/a><\/h2>\r\nResponse to SRA Consultation on Handbook Amendments Relating to International Practice <\/p>
<\/a><\/div><\/li>12\/03\/2013 - Response to the LSB Consultation on its Draft Business Plan 2013<\/a><\/h2>\r\nResponse to the LSB Consultation on its Draft Business Plan 2013<\/p>
<\/a><\/div><\/li>11\/03\/2013 - Minutes of Meeting held in February 2013<\/a><\/h2>\r\nMinutes of Meeting held in February 2013<\/p>
<\/a><\/div><\/li>22\/01\/2013 - Response to SRA Consultation on Co-operation Agreements<\/a><\/h2>\r\nResponse to SRA Consultation on Co-operation Agreements<\/p>
<\/a><\/div><\/li>15\/08\/2012 - Response to SRA consultation on The Future of Authorised Professional Firms<\/a><\/h2>\r\nResponse to SRA consultation on The Future of Authorised Professional Firms<\/p>
<\/a><\/div><\/li>12\/04\/2012 - Response to HMG Consultation on Introducing a Statutory Register of Lobbyists<\/a><\/h2>\r\nResponse to HMG Consultation on Introducing a Statutory Register of Lobbyists<\/p>
<\/a><\/div><\/li>14\/02\/2012 - Response to the SRA's<\/a><\/h2>\r\nResponse to the SRA's \"Regulation of International Practice\" Consultation<\/p>
<\/a><\/div><\/li>17\/01\/2012 - Response to SRA consultation \u201cSRA financial protection review\u201d<\/a><\/h2>\r\nResponse to SRA consultation \u201cSRA financial protection review\u201d<\/p>
<\/a><\/div><\/li>17\/01\/2012 - Minutes of the Meeting held in December 2011<\/a><\/h2>\r\nMinutes of the Meeting held in December 2011<\/p>
<\/a><\/div><\/li>26\/10\/2011 - Minutes from Meeting held in June 2011<\/a><\/h2>\r\nMinutes from Meeting held in June 2011<\/p>
<\/a><\/div><\/li>11\/07\/2011 - Response to SRA Consultation<\/a><\/h2>\r\nResponse to SRA Consultation \"Alternative Business Structures Fee Structure\"<\/p>
<\/a><\/div><\/li>26\/04\/2011 - Response to SRA Consultation<\/a><\/h2>\r\nResponse to SRA Consultation \"Future Client Financial Protection Arrangements\" <\/p>
<\/a><\/div><\/li>28\/02\/2011 - CLLS Response to the SRA Architecture of Change Part 2 Consultation<\/a><\/h2>\r\nCLLS Response to the SRA Architecture of Change Part 2 Consultation<\/p>
<\/a><\/div><\/li>20\/06\/2014 - Response to SRA consultation: Compensation Arrangements Review - the introduction of an eligibility criteria<\/a><\/h2>\r\nThe consultation invited views on the SRA\u2019s arrangements for compensating clients who suffer financial loss due to dishonesty, failure to account or civil liability of uninsured practitioners. The CLLS submission responded to the specific consultation questions. The submission also expressed, more generally, a concern that the SRA was consulting on an important topic that may have significant implications, in particular for consumers who do suffer losses, without explaining (i) clearly what has driven the proposal or (ii) providing supporting evidence, that only the SRA can provide, about the impact of the proposal.<\/p>
<\/a><\/div><\/li>19\/06\/2014 - Response to SRA consultation on Proportionate regulation: changes to reporting accounting requirements<\/a><\/h2>\r\nThis consultation paper contained two proposals: removal of the mandatory requirement that firms must submit an annual accountant's report to the SRA, and requiring COFAs to sign a declaration that they are satisfied that their respective firms are managing their client accounts in accordance with the SRA Account Rules. The proposals form part of an SRA programme to reform its regulatory regime \u201cto reduce unnecessary burdens and provide flexibility of approach to deliver good financial management\u201d. The submission responded to the specific consultation questions, and argued more generally that the consultation was premature, and that no changes should be made to the current reporting accountant regime until such time as the general review of the SRA accounts rules had been completed. <\/p>
<\/a><\/div><\/li>02\/06\/2014 - Response to SRA consultation \u201cAnnual keeping of the roll exercise\u201d<\/a><\/h2>\r\nThe consultation sought views on proposals to remove \u201cthe unnecessary and over burdensome process which requires solicitors who do not hold practising certificates to complete a yearly online application and pay a fee if they wish their name to remain on the roll of solicitors\u201d. The Submission broadly agreed with the consultation proposal to stop the annual updating process while keeping the power for the SRA to carry out updates when it thinks these are needed. It also broadly agreed with the proposal\u2019s expressed purpose, being \u2018to remove the unnecessary and burdensome process\u2019 involved with solicitors who do not have Practising Certificates (\u2018PCs\u2019) having to renew their roll applications annually. However, the Submission also raised concerns about the failure of the Consultation Paper to address the impact of remaining on the roll in any detail, including in relation to the status of undertakings given by non-practising solicitors who remain on the roll. It also raised concerns about some of the consequences that might arise were the annual updating process to be dispensed with. <\/p>
<\/a><\/div><\/li>02\/06\/2014 - Response to SRA consultation \u201cRed Tape Initiative: Residual client balances\u201d<\/a><\/h2>\r\nThe consultation sought views on proposals to amend the SRA Account Rules 2011 relating to how practitioners deal with client money they are unable to return to clients at the end of a matter (residual client balances), including the processes surrounding the withdrawal of such funds and the basis for distribution to charities. The Submission in response noted that the CLLS supports a proposal to increase the level at which practitioners can self-certify transfers of residual client balances, although it noted that there are differing views within the CLLS about the level at which SRA authorisation should be required. The submission also expressed concern that a significant increase in the self-certification level should be balanced by appropriate but proportional checks and balances. Furthermore, it agreed with the SRA\u2019s view that it ought not to restrict the charities to which residual balances should be transferred. <\/p>
<\/a><\/div><\/li>15\/04\/2014 - Proposed Changes in the Registered European Lawyer Regime<\/a><\/h2>\r\n<\/p>
<\/a><\/div><\/li>11\/02\/2014 - Response to LSB consultation on its draft 2014\/15 Business Plan<\/a><\/h2>\r\nThe response highlighted the amount that the City firms pay annually towards the regulatory and \u2018permitted purposes\u2019 costs of the legal sector, and expressed concern about the absence of the item \u201cMapping the Unregulated Market\u201d from the LSB\u2019s planned research programme. The response called on the LSB to answer a question that it had posed in an earlier consultation (\u201cEnhancing consumer protection, reducing regulatory restrictions\u201d) namely \u201cthere is a question about the relative balance of regulatory focus. Is the current balance of regulation right or are there areas where deregulation may be appropriate?\u2019\u201c\r\n\r\n\r\n<\/p>
<\/a><\/div><\/li>11\/02\/2014 - Response to SRA consultation: Proposal to increase the SRA's internal fining powers<\/a><\/h2>\r\nThe consultation paper invited views on the SRA\u2019s proposal to increase the current level of its fining powers for \u2018traditional\u2019 firms (i.e. non-ABS firms) from the current level of \u00a32,000, and to enable the SRA to agree (rather than impose) fines of a more significant amount with the regulated person concerned under its existing policy of agreeing the outcome of an investigation under its Regulatory Settlements Agreements policy. The response commented in detail on the consultation proposals, and questioned the consultation paper\u2019s presumption that the disciplinary regime that currently applies to ABS firms should be extended to all regulated firms. <\/p>
<\/a><\/div><\/li>26\/11\/2013 - Response to LSB consultation on Chairs of regulatory bodies: Consultation on an amendment to the Internal Governance Rules to require that the Chairs of the Boards of the regulatory arms of each applicable approved regulator be a lay person.<\/a><\/h2>\r\nThe consultation paper focussed on a proposed amendment to the Internal Governance Rules to require that the Chairs of the Boards of the regulatory arms of each \u201capplicable approved regulator\u201d be a lay person. In its response, the Committee raised a number of points, including that it saw \u201clittle merit in a rule change which necessarily narrows the field of candidates for the role of Chair of these bodies, where no evidence is given to show that the presence of a non-lay Chair has meaningfully impeded the independence of the regulator\u201d.<\/p>
<\/a><\/div><\/li>09\/09\/2013 - Review of the Legal Services Regulatory Framework: CLLS Submission to the Ministry of Justice<\/a><\/h2>\r\nReview of the Legal Services Regulatory Framework: CLLS Submission to the Ministry of Justice.<\/p>
<\/a><\/div><\/li>13\/08\/2013 - Response to Committee on Standards in Public Life Consultation on Lobbying Issues and Questions<\/a><\/h2>\r\n<\/p>
<\/a><\/div><\/li>24\/07\/2013 - Minutes of Meeting held in June 2013<\/a><\/h2>\r\nMinutes of Meeting held in June 2013<\/p>
<\/a><\/div><\/li>08\/07\/2013 - Response to SRA Consultation on New Overseas Rules<\/a><\/h2>\r\nResponse to SRA Consultation on New Overseas Rules<\/p>
<\/a><\/div><\/li>07\/07\/2013 - Response to SRA Consultation on New Overseas Rules \u2013 Comments on Annexes<\/a><\/h2>\r\nResponse to SRA Consultation on New Overseas Rules \u2013 Comments on Annexes<\/p>
<\/a><\/div><\/li>04\/07\/2013 - Response to SRA consultation Red Tape Initiative Phase 2: Removing unnecessary regulations and simplifying processes<\/a><\/h2>\r\nResponse to SRA consultation Red Tape Initiative Phase 2: Removing unnecessary regulations and simplifying processes<\/p>
<\/a><\/div><\/li>19\/04\/2013 - Response to SRA consultation: Indicative guidance on financial penalties<\/a><\/h2>\r\nResponse to SRA consultation: Indicative guidance on financial penalties<\/p>
<\/a><\/div><\/li>25\/03\/2013 - Response to SRA Consultation on Handbook Amendments Relating to International<\/a><\/h2>\r\nResponse to SRA Consultation on Handbook Amendments Relating to International Practice <\/p>
<\/a><\/div><\/li>12\/03\/2013 - Response to the LSB Consultation on its Draft Business Plan 2013<\/a><\/h2>\r\nResponse to the LSB Consultation on its Draft Business Plan 2013<\/p>
<\/a><\/div><\/li>11\/03\/2013 - Minutes of Meeting held in February 2013<\/a><\/h2>\r\nMinutes of Meeting held in February 2013<\/p>
<\/a><\/div><\/li>22\/01\/2013 - Response to SRA Consultation on Co-operation Agreements<\/a><\/h2>\r\nResponse to SRA Consultation on Co-operation Agreements<\/p>
<\/a><\/div><\/li>15\/08\/2012 - Response to SRA consultation on The Future of Authorised Professional Firms<\/a><\/h2>\r\nResponse to SRA consultation on The Future of Authorised Professional Firms<\/p>
<\/a><\/div><\/li>12\/04\/2012 - Response to HMG Consultation on Introducing a Statutory Register of Lobbyists<\/a><\/h2>\r\nResponse to HMG Consultation on Introducing a Statutory Register of Lobbyists<\/p>
<\/a><\/div><\/li>14\/02\/2012 - Response to the SRA's<\/a><\/h2>\r\nResponse to the SRA's \"Regulation of International Practice\" Consultation<\/p>
<\/a><\/div><\/li>17\/01\/2012 - Response to SRA consultation \u201cSRA financial protection review\u201d<\/a><\/h2>\r\nResponse to SRA consultation \u201cSRA financial protection review\u201d<\/p>
<\/a><\/div><\/li>17\/01\/2012 - Minutes of the Meeting held in December 2011<\/a><\/h2>\r\nMinutes of the Meeting held in December 2011<\/p>
<\/a><\/div><\/li>26\/10\/2011 - Minutes from Meeting held in June 2011<\/a><\/h2>\r\nMinutes from Meeting held in June 2011<\/p>
<\/a><\/div><\/li>11\/07\/2011 - Response to SRA Consultation<\/a><\/h2>\r\nResponse to SRA Consultation \"Alternative Business Structures Fee Structure\"<\/p>
<\/a><\/div><\/li>26\/04\/2011 - Response to SRA Consultation<\/a><\/h2>\r\nResponse to SRA Consultation \"Future Client Financial Protection Arrangements\" <\/p>
<\/a><\/div><\/li>28\/02\/2011 - CLLS Response to the SRA Architecture of Change Part 2 Consultation<\/a><\/h2>\r\nCLLS Response to the SRA Architecture of Change Part 2 Consultation<\/p>
<\/a><\/div><\/li>19\/06\/2014 - Response to SRA consultation on Proportionate regulation: changes to reporting accounting requirements<\/a><\/h2>\r\nThis consultation paper contained two proposals: removal of the mandatory requirement that firms must submit an annual accountant's report to the SRA, and requiring COFAs to sign a declaration that they are satisfied that their respective firms are managing their client accounts in accordance with the SRA Account Rules. The proposals form part of an SRA programme to reform its regulatory regime \u201cto reduce unnecessary burdens and provide flexibility of approach to deliver good financial management\u201d. The submission responded to the specific consultation questions, and argued more generally that the consultation was premature, and that no changes should be made to the current reporting accountant regime until such time as the general review of the SRA accounts rules had been completed. <\/p>
<\/a><\/div><\/li>02\/06\/2014 - Response to SRA consultation \u201cAnnual keeping of the roll exercise\u201d<\/a><\/h2>\r\nThe consultation sought views on proposals to remove \u201cthe unnecessary and over burdensome process which requires solicitors who do not hold practising certificates to complete a yearly online application and pay a fee if they wish their name to remain on the roll of solicitors\u201d. The Submission broadly agreed with the consultation proposal to stop the annual updating process while keeping the power for the SRA to carry out updates when it thinks these are needed. It also broadly agreed with the proposal\u2019s expressed purpose, being \u2018to remove the unnecessary and burdensome process\u2019 involved with solicitors who do not have Practising Certificates (\u2018PCs\u2019) having to renew their roll applications annually. However, the Submission also raised concerns about the failure of the Consultation Paper to address the impact of remaining on the roll in any detail, including in relation to the status of undertakings given by non-practising solicitors who remain on the roll. It also raised concerns about some of the consequences that might arise were the annual updating process to be dispensed with. <\/p>
<\/a><\/div><\/li>02\/06\/2014 - Response to SRA consultation \u201cRed Tape Initiative: Residual client balances\u201d<\/a><\/h2>\r\nThe consultation sought views on proposals to amend the SRA Account Rules 2011 relating to how practitioners deal with client money they are unable to return to clients at the end of a matter (residual client balances), including the processes surrounding the withdrawal of such funds and the basis for distribution to charities. The Submission in response noted that the CLLS supports a proposal to increase the level at which practitioners can self-certify transfers of residual client balances, although it noted that there are differing views within the CLLS about the level at which SRA authorisation should be required. The submission also expressed concern that a significant increase in the self-certification level should be balanced by appropriate but proportional checks and balances. Furthermore, it agreed with the SRA\u2019s view that it ought not to restrict the charities to which residual balances should be transferred. <\/p>
<\/a><\/div><\/li>15\/04\/2014 - Proposed Changes in the Registered European Lawyer Regime<\/a><\/h2>\r\n<\/p>
<\/a><\/div><\/li>11\/02\/2014 - Response to LSB consultation on its draft 2014\/15 Business Plan<\/a><\/h2>\r\nThe response highlighted the amount that the City firms pay annually towards the regulatory and \u2018permitted purposes\u2019 costs of the legal sector, and expressed concern about the absence of the item \u201cMapping the Unregulated Market\u201d from the LSB\u2019s planned research programme. The response called on the LSB to answer a question that it had posed in an earlier consultation (\u201cEnhancing consumer protection, reducing regulatory restrictions\u201d) namely \u201cthere is a question about the relative balance of regulatory focus. Is the current balance of regulation right or are there areas where deregulation may be appropriate?\u2019\u201c\r\n\r\n\r\n<\/p>
<\/a><\/div><\/li>11\/02\/2014 - Response to SRA consultation: Proposal to increase the SRA's internal fining powers<\/a><\/h2>\r\nThe consultation paper invited views on the SRA\u2019s proposal to increase the current level of its fining powers for \u2018traditional\u2019 firms (i.e. non-ABS firms) from the current level of \u00a32,000, and to enable the SRA to agree (rather than impose) fines of a more significant amount with the regulated person concerned under its existing policy of agreeing the outcome of an investigation under its Regulatory Settlements Agreements policy. The response commented in detail on the consultation proposals, and questioned the consultation paper\u2019s presumption that the disciplinary regime that currently applies to ABS firms should be extended to all regulated firms. <\/p>
<\/a><\/div><\/li>26\/11\/2013 - Response to LSB consultation on Chairs of regulatory bodies: Consultation on an amendment to the Internal Governance Rules to require that the Chairs of the Boards of the regulatory arms of each applicable approved regulator be a lay person.<\/a><\/h2>\r\nThe consultation paper focussed on a proposed amendment to the Internal Governance Rules to require that the Chairs of the Boards of the regulatory arms of each \u201capplicable approved regulator\u201d be a lay person. In its response, the Committee raised a number of points, including that it saw \u201clittle merit in a rule change which necessarily narrows the field of candidates for the role of Chair of these bodies, where no evidence is given to show that the presence of a non-lay Chair has meaningfully impeded the independence of the regulator\u201d.<\/p>
<\/a><\/div><\/li>09\/09\/2013 - Review of the Legal Services Regulatory Framework: CLLS Submission to the Ministry of Justice<\/a><\/h2>\r\nReview of the Legal Services Regulatory Framework: CLLS Submission to the Ministry of Justice.<\/p>
<\/a><\/div><\/li>13\/08\/2013 - Response to Committee on Standards in Public Life Consultation on Lobbying Issues and Questions<\/a><\/h2>\r\n<\/p>
<\/a><\/div><\/li>24\/07\/2013 - Minutes of Meeting held in June 2013<\/a><\/h2>\r\nMinutes of Meeting held in June 2013<\/p>
<\/a><\/div><\/li>08\/07\/2013 - Response to SRA Consultation on New Overseas Rules<\/a><\/h2>\r\nResponse to SRA Consultation on New Overseas Rules<\/p>
<\/a><\/div><\/li>07\/07\/2013 - Response to SRA Consultation on New Overseas Rules \u2013 Comments on Annexes<\/a><\/h2>\r\nResponse to SRA Consultation on New Overseas Rules \u2013 Comments on Annexes<\/p>
<\/a><\/div><\/li>04\/07\/2013 - Response to SRA consultation Red Tape Initiative Phase 2: Removing unnecessary regulations and simplifying processes<\/a><\/h2>\r\nResponse to SRA consultation Red Tape Initiative Phase 2: Removing unnecessary regulations and simplifying processes<\/p>
<\/a><\/div><\/li>19\/04\/2013 - Response to SRA consultation: Indicative guidance on financial penalties<\/a><\/h2>\r\nResponse to SRA consultation: Indicative guidance on financial penalties<\/p>
<\/a><\/div><\/li>25\/03\/2013 - Response to SRA Consultation on Handbook Amendments Relating to International<\/a><\/h2>\r\nResponse to SRA Consultation on Handbook Amendments Relating to International Practice <\/p>
<\/a><\/div><\/li>12\/03\/2013 - Response to the LSB Consultation on its Draft Business Plan 2013<\/a><\/h2>\r\nResponse to the LSB Consultation on its Draft Business Plan 2013<\/p>
<\/a><\/div><\/li>11\/03\/2013 - Minutes of Meeting held in February 2013<\/a><\/h2>\r\nMinutes of Meeting held in February 2013<\/p>
<\/a><\/div><\/li>22\/01\/2013 - Response to SRA Consultation on Co-operation Agreements<\/a><\/h2>\r\nResponse to SRA Consultation on Co-operation Agreements<\/p>
<\/a><\/div><\/li>15\/08\/2012 - Response to SRA consultation on The Future of Authorised Professional Firms<\/a><\/h2>\r\nResponse to SRA consultation on The Future of Authorised Professional Firms<\/p>
<\/a><\/div><\/li>12\/04\/2012 - Response to HMG Consultation on Introducing a Statutory Register of Lobbyists<\/a><\/h2>\r\nResponse to HMG Consultation on Introducing a Statutory Register of Lobbyists<\/p>
<\/a><\/div><\/li>14\/02\/2012 - Response to the SRA's<\/a><\/h2>\r\nResponse to the SRA's \"Regulation of International Practice\" Consultation<\/p>
<\/a><\/div><\/li>17\/01\/2012 - Response to SRA consultation \u201cSRA financial protection review\u201d<\/a><\/h2>\r\nResponse to SRA consultation \u201cSRA financial protection review\u201d<\/p>
<\/a><\/div><\/li>17\/01\/2012 - Minutes of the Meeting held in December 2011<\/a><\/h2>\r\nMinutes of the Meeting held in December 2011<\/p>
<\/a><\/div><\/li>26\/10\/2011 - Minutes from Meeting held in June 2011<\/a><\/h2>\r\nMinutes from Meeting held in June 2011<\/p>
<\/a><\/div><\/li>11\/07\/2011 - Response to SRA Consultation<\/a><\/h2>\r\nResponse to SRA Consultation \"Alternative Business Structures Fee Structure\"<\/p>
<\/a><\/div><\/li>26\/04\/2011 - Response to SRA Consultation<\/a><\/h2>\r\nResponse to SRA Consultation \"Future Client Financial Protection Arrangements\" <\/p>
<\/a><\/div><\/li>28\/02\/2011 - CLLS Response to the SRA Architecture of Change Part 2 Consultation<\/a><\/h2>\r\nCLLS Response to the SRA Architecture of Change Part 2 Consultation<\/p>
<\/a><\/div><\/li>02\/06\/2014 - Response to SRA consultation \u201cAnnual keeping of the roll exercise\u201d<\/a><\/h2>\r\nThe consultation sought views on proposals to remove \u201cthe unnecessary and over burdensome process which requires solicitors who do not hold practising certificates to complete a yearly online application and pay a fee if they wish their name to remain on the roll of solicitors\u201d. The Submission broadly agreed with the consultation proposal to stop the annual updating process while keeping the power for the SRA to carry out updates when it thinks these are needed. It also broadly agreed with the proposal\u2019s expressed purpose, being \u2018to remove the unnecessary and burdensome process\u2019 involved with solicitors who do not have Practising Certificates (\u2018PCs\u2019) having to renew their roll applications annually. However, the Submission also raised concerns about the failure of the Consultation Paper to address the impact of remaining on the roll in any detail, including in relation to the status of undertakings given by non-practising solicitors who remain on the roll. It also raised concerns about some of the consequences that might arise were the annual updating process to be dispensed with. <\/p>
<\/a><\/div><\/li>02\/06\/2014 - Response to SRA consultation \u201cRed Tape Initiative: Residual client balances\u201d<\/a><\/h2>\r\nThe consultation sought views on proposals to amend the SRA Account Rules 2011 relating to how practitioners deal with client money they are unable to return to clients at the end of a matter (residual client balances), including the processes surrounding the withdrawal of such funds and the basis for distribution to charities. The Submission in response noted that the CLLS supports a proposal to increase the level at which practitioners can self-certify transfers of residual client balances, although it noted that there are differing views within the CLLS about the level at which SRA authorisation should be required. The submission also expressed concern that a significant increase in the self-certification level should be balanced by appropriate but proportional checks and balances. Furthermore, it agreed with the SRA\u2019s view that it ought not to restrict the charities to which residual balances should be transferred. <\/p>
<\/a><\/div><\/li>15\/04\/2014 - Proposed Changes in the Registered European Lawyer Regime<\/a><\/h2>\r\n<\/p>
<\/a><\/div><\/li>11\/02\/2014 - Response to LSB consultation on its draft 2014\/15 Business Plan<\/a><\/h2>\r\nThe response highlighted the amount that the City firms pay annually towards the regulatory and \u2018permitted purposes\u2019 costs of the legal sector, and expressed concern about the absence of the item \u201cMapping the Unregulated Market\u201d from the LSB\u2019s planned research programme. The response called on the LSB to answer a question that it had posed in an earlier consultation (\u201cEnhancing consumer protection, reducing regulatory restrictions\u201d) namely \u201cthere is a question about the relative balance of regulatory focus. Is the current balance of regulation right or are there areas where deregulation may be appropriate?\u2019\u201c\r\n\r\n\r\n<\/p>
<\/a><\/div><\/li>11\/02\/2014 - Response to SRA consultation: Proposal to increase the SRA's internal fining powers<\/a><\/h2>\r\nThe consultation paper invited views on the SRA\u2019s proposal to increase the current level of its fining powers for \u2018traditional\u2019 firms (i.e. non-ABS firms) from the current level of \u00a32,000, and to enable the SRA to agree (rather than impose) fines of a more significant amount with the regulated person concerned under its existing policy of agreeing the outcome of an investigation under its Regulatory Settlements Agreements policy. The response commented in detail on the consultation proposals, and questioned the consultation paper\u2019s presumption that the disciplinary regime that currently applies to ABS firms should be extended to all regulated firms. <\/p>
<\/a><\/div><\/li>26\/11\/2013 - Response to LSB consultation on Chairs of regulatory bodies: Consultation on an amendment to the Internal Governance Rules to require that the Chairs of the Boards of the regulatory arms of each applicable approved regulator be a lay person.<\/a><\/h2>\r\nThe consultation paper focussed on a proposed amendment to the Internal Governance Rules to require that the Chairs of the Boards of the regulatory arms of each \u201capplicable approved regulator\u201d be a lay person. In its response, the Committee raised a number of points, including that it saw \u201clittle merit in a rule change which necessarily narrows the field of candidates for the role of Chair of these bodies, where no evidence is given to show that the presence of a non-lay Chair has meaningfully impeded the independence of the regulator\u201d.<\/p>
<\/a><\/div><\/li>09\/09\/2013 - Review of the Legal Services Regulatory Framework: CLLS Submission to the Ministry of Justice<\/a><\/h2>\r\nReview of the Legal Services Regulatory Framework: CLLS Submission to the Ministry of Justice.<\/p>
<\/a><\/div><\/li>13\/08\/2013 - Response to Committee on Standards in Public Life Consultation on Lobbying Issues and Questions<\/a><\/h2>\r\n<\/p>
<\/a><\/div><\/li>24\/07\/2013 - Minutes of Meeting held in June 2013<\/a><\/h2>\r\nMinutes of Meeting held in June 2013<\/p>
<\/a><\/div><\/li>08\/07\/2013 - Response to SRA Consultation on New Overseas Rules<\/a><\/h2>\r\nResponse to SRA Consultation on New Overseas Rules<\/p>
<\/a><\/div><\/li>07\/07\/2013 - Response to SRA Consultation on New Overseas Rules \u2013 Comments on Annexes<\/a><\/h2>\r\nResponse to SRA Consultation on New Overseas Rules \u2013 Comments on Annexes<\/p>
<\/a><\/div><\/li>04\/07\/2013 - Response to SRA consultation Red Tape Initiative Phase 2: Removing unnecessary regulations and simplifying processes<\/a><\/h2>\r\nResponse to SRA consultation Red Tape Initiative Phase 2: Removing unnecessary regulations and simplifying processes<\/p>
<\/a><\/div><\/li>19\/04\/2013 - Response to SRA consultation: Indicative guidance on financial penalties<\/a><\/h2>\r\nResponse to SRA consultation: Indicative guidance on financial penalties<\/p>
<\/a><\/div><\/li>25\/03\/2013 - Response to SRA Consultation on Handbook Amendments Relating to International<\/a><\/h2>\r\nResponse to SRA Consultation on Handbook Amendments Relating to International Practice <\/p>
<\/a><\/div><\/li>12\/03\/2013 - Response to the LSB Consultation on its Draft Business Plan 2013<\/a><\/h2>\r\nResponse to the LSB Consultation on its Draft Business Plan 2013<\/p>
<\/a><\/div><\/li>11\/03\/2013 - Minutes of Meeting held in February 2013<\/a><\/h2>\r\nMinutes of Meeting held in February 2013<\/p>
<\/a><\/div><\/li>22\/01\/2013 - Response to SRA Consultation on Co-operation Agreements<\/a><\/h2>\r\nResponse to SRA Consultation on Co-operation Agreements<\/p>
<\/a><\/div><\/li>15\/08\/2012 - Response to SRA consultation on The Future of Authorised Professional Firms<\/a><\/h2>\r\nResponse to SRA consultation on The Future of Authorised Professional Firms<\/p>
<\/a><\/div><\/li>12\/04\/2012 - Response to HMG Consultation on Introducing a Statutory Register of Lobbyists<\/a><\/h2>\r\nResponse to HMG Consultation on Introducing a Statutory Register of Lobbyists<\/p>
<\/a><\/div><\/li>14\/02\/2012 - Response to the SRA's<\/a><\/h2>\r\nResponse to the SRA's \"Regulation of International Practice\" Consultation<\/p>
<\/a><\/div><\/li>17\/01\/2012 - Response to SRA consultation \u201cSRA financial protection review\u201d<\/a><\/h2>\r\nResponse to SRA consultation \u201cSRA financial protection review\u201d<\/p>
<\/a><\/div><\/li>17\/01\/2012 - Minutes of the Meeting held in December 2011<\/a><\/h2>\r\nMinutes of the Meeting held in December 2011<\/p>
<\/a><\/div><\/li>26\/10\/2011 - Minutes from Meeting held in June 2011<\/a><\/h2>\r\nMinutes from Meeting held in June 2011<\/p>
<\/a><\/div><\/li>11\/07\/2011 - Response to SRA Consultation<\/a><\/h2>\r\nResponse to SRA Consultation \"Alternative Business Structures Fee Structure\"<\/p>
<\/a><\/div><\/li>26\/04\/2011 - Response to SRA Consultation<\/a><\/h2>\r\nResponse to SRA Consultation \"Future Client Financial Protection Arrangements\" <\/p>
<\/a><\/div><\/li>28\/02\/2011 - CLLS Response to the SRA Architecture of Change Part 2 Consultation<\/a><\/h2>\r\nCLLS Response to the SRA Architecture of Change Part 2 Consultation<\/p>
<\/a><\/div><\/li>02\/06\/2014 - Response to SRA consultation \u201cRed Tape Initiative: Residual client balances\u201d<\/a><\/h2>\r\nThe consultation sought views on proposals to amend the SRA Account Rules 2011 relating to how practitioners deal with client money they are unable to return to clients at the end of a matter (residual client balances), including the processes surrounding the withdrawal of such funds and the basis for distribution to charities. The Submission in response noted that the CLLS supports a proposal to increase the level at which practitioners can self-certify transfers of residual client balances, although it noted that there are differing views within the CLLS about the level at which SRA authorisation should be required. The submission also expressed concern that a significant increase in the self-certification level should be balanced by appropriate but proportional checks and balances. Furthermore, it agreed with the SRA\u2019s view that it ought not to restrict the charities to which residual balances should be transferred. <\/p>
<\/a><\/div><\/li>15\/04\/2014 - Proposed Changes in the Registered European Lawyer Regime<\/a><\/h2>\r\n<\/p>
<\/a><\/div><\/li>11\/02\/2014 - Response to LSB consultation on its draft 2014\/15 Business Plan<\/a><\/h2>\r\nThe response highlighted the amount that the City firms pay annually towards the regulatory and \u2018permitted purposes\u2019 costs of the legal sector, and expressed concern about the absence of the item \u201cMapping the Unregulated Market\u201d from the LSB\u2019s planned research programme. The response called on the LSB to answer a question that it had posed in an earlier consultation (\u201cEnhancing consumer protection, reducing regulatory restrictions\u201d) namely \u201cthere is a question about the relative balance of regulatory focus. Is the current balance of regulation right or are there areas where deregulation may be appropriate?\u2019\u201c\r\n\r\n\r\n<\/p>
<\/a><\/div><\/li>11\/02\/2014 - Response to SRA consultation: Proposal to increase the SRA's internal fining powers<\/a><\/h2>\r\nThe consultation paper invited views on the SRA\u2019s proposal to increase the current level of its fining powers for \u2018traditional\u2019 firms (i.e. non-ABS firms) from the current level of \u00a32,000, and to enable the SRA to agree (rather than impose) fines of a more significant amount with the regulated person concerned under its existing policy of agreeing the outcome of an investigation under its Regulatory Settlements Agreements policy. The response commented in detail on the consultation proposals, and questioned the consultation paper\u2019s presumption that the disciplinary regime that currently applies to ABS firms should be extended to all regulated firms. <\/p>
<\/a><\/div><\/li>26\/11\/2013 - Response to LSB consultation on Chairs of regulatory bodies: Consultation on an amendment to the Internal Governance Rules to require that the Chairs of the Boards of the regulatory arms of each applicable approved regulator be a lay person.<\/a><\/h2>\r\nThe consultation paper focussed on a proposed amendment to the Internal Governance Rules to require that the Chairs of the Boards of the regulatory arms of each \u201capplicable approved regulator\u201d be a lay person. In its response, the Committee raised a number of points, including that it saw \u201clittle merit in a rule change which necessarily narrows the field of candidates for the role of Chair of these bodies, where no evidence is given to show that the presence of a non-lay Chair has meaningfully impeded the independence of the regulator\u201d.<\/p>
<\/a><\/div><\/li>09\/09\/2013 - Review of the Legal Services Regulatory Framework: CLLS Submission to the Ministry of Justice<\/a><\/h2>\r\nReview of the Legal Services Regulatory Framework: CLLS Submission to the Ministry of Justice.<\/p>
<\/a><\/div><\/li>13\/08\/2013 - Response to Committee on Standards in Public Life Consultation on Lobbying Issues and Questions<\/a><\/h2>\r\n<\/p>
<\/a><\/div><\/li>24\/07\/2013 - Minutes of Meeting held in June 2013<\/a><\/h2>\r\nMinutes of Meeting held in June 2013<\/p>
<\/a><\/div><\/li>08\/07\/2013 - Response to SRA Consultation on New Overseas Rules<\/a><\/h2>\r\nResponse to SRA Consultation on New Overseas Rules<\/p>
<\/a><\/div><\/li>07\/07\/2013 - Response to SRA Consultation on New Overseas Rules \u2013 Comments on Annexes<\/a><\/h2>\r\nResponse to SRA Consultation on New Overseas Rules \u2013 Comments on Annexes<\/p>
<\/a><\/div><\/li>04\/07\/2013 - Response to SRA consultation Red Tape Initiative Phase 2: Removing unnecessary regulations and simplifying processes<\/a><\/h2>\r\nResponse to SRA consultation Red Tape Initiative Phase 2: Removing unnecessary regulations and simplifying processes<\/p>
<\/a><\/div><\/li>19\/04\/2013 - Response to SRA consultation: Indicative guidance on financial penalties<\/a><\/h2>\r\nResponse to SRA consultation: Indicative guidance on financial penalties<\/p>
<\/a><\/div><\/li>25\/03\/2013 - Response to SRA Consultation on Handbook Amendments Relating to International<\/a><\/h2>\r\nResponse to SRA Consultation on Handbook Amendments Relating to International Practice <\/p>
<\/a><\/div><\/li>12\/03\/2013 - Response to the LSB Consultation on its Draft Business Plan 2013<\/a><\/h2>\r\nResponse to the LSB Consultation on its Draft Business Plan 2013<\/p>
<\/a><\/div><\/li>11\/03\/2013 - Minutes of Meeting held in February 2013<\/a><\/h2>\r\nMinutes of Meeting held in February 2013<\/p>
<\/a><\/div><\/li>22\/01\/2013 - Response to SRA Consultation on Co-operation Agreements<\/a><\/h2>\r\nResponse to SRA Consultation on Co-operation Agreements<\/p>
<\/a><\/div><\/li>15\/08\/2012 - Response to SRA consultation on The Future of Authorised Professional Firms<\/a><\/h2>\r\nResponse to SRA consultation on The Future of Authorised Professional Firms<\/p>
<\/a><\/div><\/li>12\/04\/2012 - Response to HMG Consultation on Introducing a Statutory Register of Lobbyists<\/a><\/h2>\r\nResponse to HMG Consultation on Introducing a Statutory Register of Lobbyists<\/p>
<\/a><\/div><\/li>14\/02\/2012 - Response to the SRA's<\/a><\/h2>\r\nResponse to the SRA's \"Regulation of International Practice\" Consultation<\/p>
<\/a><\/div><\/li>17\/01\/2012 - Response to SRA consultation \u201cSRA financial protection review\u201d<\/a><\/h2>\r\nResponse to SRA consultation \u201cSRA financial protection review\u201d<\/p>
<\/a><\/div><\/li>17\/01\/2012 - Minutes of the Meeting held in December 2011<\/a><\/h2>\r\nMinutes of the Meeting held in December 2011<\/p>
<\/a><\/div><\/li>26\/10\/2011 - Minutes from Meeting held in June 2011<\/a><\/h2>\r\nMinutes from Meeting held in June 2011<\/p>
<\/a><\/div><\/li>11\/07\/2011 - Response to SRA Consultation<\/a><\/h2>\r\nResponse to SRA Consultation \"Alternative Business Structures Fee Structure\"<\/p>
<\/a><\/div><\/li>26\/04\/2011 - Response to SRA Consultation<\/a><\/h2>\r\nResponse to SRA Consultation \"Future Client Financial Protection Arrangements\" <\/p>
<\/a><\/div><\/li>28\/02\/2011 - CLLS Response to the SRA Architecture of Change Part 2 Consultation<\/a><\/h2>\r\nCLLS Response to the SRA Architecture of Change Part 2 Consultation<\/p>
<\/a><\/div><\/li>15\/04\/2014 - Proposed Changes in the Registered European Lawyer Regime<\/a><\/h2>\r\n<\/p>
<\/a><\/div><\/li>11\/02\/2014 - Response to LSB consultation on its draft 2014\/15 Business Plan<\/a><\/h2>\r\nThe response highlighted the amount that the City firms pay annually towards the regulatory and \u2018permitted purposes\u2019 costs of the legal sector, and expressed concern about the absence of the item \u201cMapping the Unregulated Market\u201d from the LSB\u2019s planned research programme. The response called on the LSB to answer a question that it had posed in an earlier consultation (\u201cEnhancing consumer protection, reducing regulatory restrictions\u201d) namely \u201cthere is a question about the relative balance of regulatory focus. Is the current balance of regulation right or are there areas where deregulation may be appropriate?\u2019\u201c\r\n\r\n\r\n<\/p>
<\/a><\/div><\/li>11\/02\/2014 - Response to SRA consultation: Proposal to increase the SRA's internal fining powers<\/a><\/h2>\r\nThe consultation paper invited views on the SRA\u2019s proposal to increase the current level of its fining powers for \u2018traditional\u2019 firms (i.e. non-ABS firms) from the current level of \u00a32,000, and to enable the SRA to agree (rather than impose) fines of a more significant amount with the regulated person concerned under its existing policy of agreeing the outcome of an investigation under its Regulatory Settlements Agreements policy. The response commented in detail on the consultation proposals, and questioned the consultation paper\u2019s presumption that the disciplinary regime that currently applies to ABS firms should be extended to all regulated firms. <\/p>
<\/a><\/div><\/li>26\/11\/2013 - Response to LSB consultation on Chairs of regulatory bodies: Consultation on an amendment to the Internal Governance Rules to require that the Chairs of the Boards of the regulatory arms of each applicable approved regulator be a lay person.<\/a><\/h2>\r\nThe consultation paper focussed on a proposed amendment to the Internal Governance Rules to require that the Chairs of the Boards of the regulatory arms of each \u201capplicable approved regulator\u201d be a lay person. In its response, the Committee raised a number of points, including that it saw \u201clittle merit in a rule change which necessarily narrows the field of candidates for the role of Chair of these bodies, where no evidence is given to show that the presence of a non-lay Chair has meaningfully impeded the independence of the regulator\u201d.<\/p>
<\/a><\/div><\/li>09\/09\/2013 - Review of the Legal Services Regulatory Framework: CLLS Submission to the Ministry of Justice<\/a><\/h2>\r\nReview of the Legal Services Regulatory Framework: CLLS Submission to the Ministry of Justice.<\/p>
<\/a><\/div><\/li>13\/08\/2013 - Response to Committee on Standards in Public Life Consultation on Lobbying Issues and Questions<\/a><\/h2>\r\n<\/p>
<\/a><\/div><\/li>24\/07\/2013 - Minutes of Meeting held in June 2013<\/a><\/h2>\r\nMinutes of Meeting held in June 2013<\/p>
<\/a><\/div><\/li>08\/07\/2013 - Response to SRA Consultation on New Overseas Rules<\/a><\/h2>\r\nResponse to SRA Consultation on New Overseas Rules<\/p>
<\/a><\/div><\/li>07\/07\/2013 - Response to SRA Consultation on New Overseas Rules \u2013 Comments on Annexes<\/a><\/h2>\r\nResponse to SRA Consultation on New Overseas Rules \u2013 Comments on Annexes<\/p>
<\/a><\/div><\/li>04\/07\/2013 - Response to SRA consultation Red Tape Initiative Phase 2: Removing unnecessary regulations and simplifying processes<\/a><\/h2>\r\nResponse to SRA consultation Red Tape Initiative Phase 2: Removing unnecessary regulations and simplifying processes<\/p>
<\/a><\/div><\/li>19\/04\/2013 - Response to SRA consultation: Indicative guidance on financial penalties<\/a><\/h2>\r\nResponse to SRA consultation: Indicative guidance on financial penalties<\/p>
<\/a><\/div><\/li>25\/03\/2013 - Response to SRA Consultation on Handbook Amendments Relating to International<\/a><\/h2>\r\nResponse to SRA Consultation on Handbook Amendments Relating to International Practice <\/p>
<\/a><\/div><\/li>12\/03\/2013 - Response to the LSB Consultation on its Draft Business Plan 2013<\/a><\/h2>\r\nResponse to the LSB Consultation on its Draft Business Plan 2013<\/p>
<\/a><\/div><\/li>11\/03\/2013 - Minutes of Meeting held in February 2013<\/a><\/h2>\r\nMinutes of Meeting held in February 2013<\/p>
<\/a><\/div><\/li>22\/01\/2013 - Response to SRA Consultation on Co-operation Agreements<\/a><\/h2>\r\nResponse to SRA Consultation on Co-operation Agreements<\/p>
<\/a><\/div><\/li>15\/08\/2012 - Response to SRA consultation on The Future of Authorised Professional Firms<\/a><\/h2>\r\nResponse to SRA consultation on The Future of Authorised Professional Firms<\/p>
<\/a><\/div><\/li>12\/04\/2012 - Response to HMG Consultation on Introducing a Statutory Register of Lobbyists<\/a><\/h2>\r\nResponse to HMG Consultation on Introducing a Statutory Register of Lobbyists<\/p>
<\/a><\/div><\/li>14\/02\/2012 - Response to the SRA's<\/a><\/h2>\r\nResponse to the SRA's \"Regulation of International Practice\" Consultation<\/p>
<\/a><\/div><\/li>17\/01\/2012 - Response to SRA consultation \u201cSRA financial protection review\u201d<\/a><\/h2>\r\nResponse to SRA consultation \u201cSRA financial protection review\u201d<\/p>
<\/a><\/div><\/li>17\/01\/2012 - Minutes of the Meeting held in December 2011<\/a><\/h2>\r\nMinutes of the Meeting held in December 2011<\/p>
<\/a><\/div><\/li>26\/10\/2011 - Minutes from Meeting held in June 2011<\/a><\/h2>\r\nMinutes from Meeting held in June 2011<\/p>
<\/a><\/div><\/li>11\/07\/2011 - Response to SRA Consultation<\/a><\/h2>\r\nResponse to SRA Consultation \"Alternative Business Structures Fee Structure\"<\/p>
<\/a><\/div><\/li>26\/04\/2011 - Response to SRA Consultation<\/a><\/h2>\r\nResponse to SRA Consultation \"Future Client Financial Protection Arrangements\" <\/p>
<\/a><\/div><\/li>28\/02\/2011 - CLLS Response to the SRA Architecture of Change Part 2 Consultation<\/a><\/h2>\r\nCLLS Response to the SRA Architecture of Change Part 2 Consultation<\/p>
<\/a><\/div><\/li>11\/02\/2014 - Response to LSB consultation on its draft 2014\/15 Business Plan<\/a><\/h2>\r\nThe response highlighted the amount that the City firms pay annually towards the regulatory and \u2018permitted purposes\u2019 costs of the legal sector, and expressed concern about the absence of the item \u201cMapping the Unregulated Market\u201d from the LSB\u2019s planned research programme. The response called on the LSB to answer a question that it had posed in an earlier consultation (\u201cEnhancing consumer protection, reducing regulatory restrictions\u201d) namely \u201cthere is a question about the relative balance of regulatory focus. Is the current balance of regulation right or are there areas where deregulation may be appropriate?\u2019\u201c\r\n\r\n\r\n<\/p>
<\/a><\/div><\/li>11\/02\/2014 - Response to SRA consultation: Proposal to increase the SRA's internal fining powers<\/a><\/h2>\r\nThe consultation paper invited views on the SRA\u2019s proposal to increase the current level of its fining powers for \u2018traditional\u2019 firms (i.e. non-ABS firms) from the current level of \u00a32,000, and to enable the SRA to agree (rather than impose) fines of a more significant amount with the regulated person concerned under its existing policy of agreeing the outcome of an investigation under its Regulatory Settlements Agreements policy. The response commented in detail on the consultation proposals, and questioned the consultation paper\u2019s presumption that the disciplinary regime that currently applies to ABS firms should be extended to all regulated firms. <\/p>
<\/a><\/div><\/li>26\/11\/2013 - Response to LSB consultation on Chairs of regulatory bodies: Consultation on an amendment to the Internal Governance Rules to require that the Chairs of the Boards of the regulatory arms of each applicable approved regulator be a lay person.<\/a><\/h2>\r\nThe consultation paper focussed on a proposed amendment to the Internal Governance Rules to require that the Chairs of the Boards of the regulatory arms of each \u201capplicable approved regulator\u201d be a lay person. In its response, the Committee raised a number of points, including that it saw \u201clittle merit in a rule change which necessarily narrows the field of candidates for the role of Chair of these bodies, where no evidence is given to show that the presence of a non-lay Chair has meaningfully impeded the independence of the regulator\u201d.<\/p>
<\/a><\/div><\/li>09\/09\/2013 - Review of the Legal Services Regulatory Framework: CLLS Submission to the Ministry of Justice<\/a><\/h2>\r\nReview of the Legal Services Regulatory Framework: CLLS Submission to the Ministry of Justice.<\/p>
<\/a><\/div><\/li>13\/08\/2013 - Response to Committee on Standards in Public Life Consultation on Lobbying Issues and Questions<\/a><\/h2>\r\n<\/p>
<\/a><\/div><\/li>24\/07\/2013 - Minutes of Meeting held in June 2013<\/a><\/h2>\r\nMinutes of Meeting held in June 2013<\/p>
<\/a><\/div><\/li>08\/07\/2013 - Response to SRA Consultation on New Overseas Rules<\/a><\/h2>\r\nResponse to SRA Consultation on New Overseas Rules<\/p>
<\/a><\/div><\/li>07\/07\/2013 - Response to SRA Consultation on New Overseas Rules \u2013 Comments on Annexes<\/a><\/h2>\r\nResponse to SRA Consultation on New Overseas Rules \u2013 Comments on Annexes<\/p>
<\/a><\/div><\/li>04\/07\/2013 - Response to SRA consultation Red Tape Initiative Phase 2: Removing unnecessary regulations and simplifying processes<\/a><\/h2>\r\nResponse to SRA consultation Red Tape Initiative Phase 2: Removing unnecessary regulations and simplifying processes<\/p>
<\/a><\/div><\/li>19\/04\/2013 - Response to SRA consultation: Indicative guidance on financial penalties<\/a><\/h2>\r\nResponse to SRA consultation: Indicative guidance on financial penalties<\/p>
<\/a><\/div><\/li>25\/03\/2013 - Response to SRA Consultation on Handbook Amendments Relating to International<\/a><\/h2>\r\nResponse to SRA Consultation on Handbook Amendments Relating to International Practice <\/p>
<\/a><\/div><\/li>12\/03\/2013 - Response to the LSB Consultation on its Draft Business Plan 2013<\/a><\/h2>\r\nResponse to the LSB Consultation on its Draft Business Plan 2013<\/p>
<\/a><\/div><\/li>11\/03\/2013 - Minutes of Meeting held in February 2013<\/a><\/h2>\r\nMinutes of Meeting held in February 2013<\/p>
<\/a><\/div><\/li>22\/01\/2013 - Response to SRA Consultation on Co-operation Agreements<\/a><\/h2>\r\nResponse to SRA Consultation on Co-operation Agreements<\/p>
<\/a><\/div><\/li>15\/08\/2012 - Response to SRA consultation on The Future of Authorised Professional Firms<\/a><\/h2>\r\nResponse to SRA consultation on The Future of Authorised Professional Firms<\/p>
<\/a><\/div><\/li>12\/04\/2012 - Response to HMG Consultation on Introducing a Statutory Register of Lobbyists<\/a><\/h2>\r\nResponse to HMG Consultation on Introducing a Statutory Register of Lobbyists<\/p>
<\/a><\/div><\/li>14\/02\/2012 - Response to the SRA's<\/a><\/h2>\r\nResponse to the SRA's \"Regulation of International Practice\" Consultation<\/p>
<\/a><\/div><\/li>17\/01\/2012 - Response to SRA consultation \u201cSRA financial protection review\u201d<\/a><\/h2>\r\nResponse to SRA consultation \u201cSRA financial protection review\u201d<\/p>
<\/a><\/div><\/li>17\/01\/2012 - Minutes of the Meeting held in December 2011<\/a><\/h2>\r\nMinutes of the Meeting held in December 2011<\/p>
<\/a><\/div><\/li>26\/10\/2011 - Minutes from Meeting held in June 2011<\/a><\/h2>\r\nMinutes from Meeting held in June 2011<\/p>
<\/a><\/div><\/li>11\/07\/2011 - Response to SRA Consultation<\/a><\/h2>\r\nResponse to SRA Consultation \"Alternative Business Structures Fee Structure\"<\/p>
<\/a><\/div><\/li>26\/04\/2011 - Response to SRA Consultation<\/a><\/h2>\r\nResponse to SRA Consultation \"Future Client Financial Protection Arrangements\" <\/p>
<\/a><\/div><\/li>28\/02\/2011 - CLLS Response to the SRA Architecture of Change Part 2 Consultation<\/a><\/h2>\r\nCLLS Response to the SRA Architecture of Change Part 2 Consultation<\/p>
<\/a><\/div><\/li>11\/02\/2014 - Response to SRA consultation: Proposal to increase the SRA's internal fining powers<\/a><\/h2>\r\nThe consultation paper invited views on the SRA\u2019s proposal to increase the current level of its fining powers for \u2018traditional\u2019 firms (i.e. non-ABS firms) from the current level of \u00a32,000, and to enable the SRA to agree (rather than impose) fines of a more significant amount with the regulated person concerned under its existing policy of agreeing the outcome of an investigation under its Regulatory Settlements Agreements policy. The response commented in detail on the consultation proposals, and questioned the consultation paper\u2019s presumption that the disciplinary regime that currently applies to ABS firms should be extended to all regulated firms. <\/p>
<\/a><\/div><\/li>26\/11\/2013 - Response to LSB consultation on Chairs of regulatory bodies: Consultation on an amendment to the Internal Governance Rules to require that the Chairs of the Boards of the regulatory arms of each applicable approved regulator be a lay person.<\/a><\/h2>\r\nThe consultation paper focussed on a proposed amendment to the Internal Governance Rules to require that the Chairs of the Boards of the regulatory arms of each \u201capplicable approved regulator\u201d be a lay person. In its response, the Committee raised a number of points, including that it saw \u201clittle merit in a rule change which necessarily narrows the field of candidates for the role of Chair of these bodies, where no evidence is given to show that the presence of a non-lay Chair has meaningfully impeded the independence of the regulator\u201d.<\/p>
<\/a><\/div><\/li>09\/09\/2013 - Review of the Legal Services Regulatory Framework: CLLS Submission to the Ministry of Justice<\/a><\/h2>\r\nReview of the Legal Services Regulatory Framework: CLLS Submission to the Ministry of Justice.<\/p>
<\/a><\/div><\/li>13\/08\/2013 - Response to Committee on Standards in Public Life Consultation on Lobbying Issues and Questions<\/a><\/h2>\r\n<\/p>
<\/a><\/div><\/li>24\/07\/2013 - Minutes of Meeting held in June 2013<\/a><\/h2>\r\nMinutes of Meeting held in June 2013<\/p>
<\/a><\/div><\/li>08\/07\/2013 - Response to SRA Consultation on New Overseas Rules<\/a><\/h2>\r\nResponse to SRA Consultation on New Overseas Rules<\/p>
<\/a><\/div><\/li>07\/07\/2013 - Response to SRA Consultation on New Overseas Rules \u2013 Comments on Annexes<\/a><\/h2>\r\nResponse to SRA Consultation on New Overseas Rules \u2013 Comments on Annexes<\/p>
<\/a><\/div><\/li>04\/07\/2013 - Response to SRA consultation Red Tape Initiative Phase 2: Removing unnecessary regulations and simplifying processes<\/a><\/h2>\r\nResponse to SRA consultation Red Tape Initiative Phase 2: Removing unnecessary regulations and simplifying processes<\/p>
<\/a><\/div><\/li>19\/04\/2013 - Response to SRA consultation: Indicative guidance on financial penalties<\/a><\/h2>\r\nResponse to SRA consultation: Indicative guidance on financial penalties<\/p>
<\/a><\/div><\/li>25\/03\/2013 - Response to SRA Consultation on Handbook Amendments Relating to International<\/a><\/h2>\r\nResponse to SRA Consultation on Handbook Amendments Relating to International Practice <\/p>
<\/a><\/div><\/li>12\/03\/2013 - Response to the LSB Consultation on its Draft Business Plan 2013<\/a><\/h2>\r\nResponse to the LSB Consultation on its Draft Business Plan 2013<\/p>
<\/a><\/div><\/li>11\/03\/2013 - Minutes of Meeting held in February 2013<\/a><\/h2>\r\nMinutes of Meeting held in February 2013<\/p>
<\/a><\/div><\/li>22\/01\/2013 - Response to SRA Consultation on Co-operation Agreements<\/a><\/h2>\r\nResponse to SRA Consultation on Co-operation Agreements<\/p>
<\/a><\/div><\/li>15\/08\/2012 - Response to SRA consultation on The Future of Authorised Professional Firms<\/a><\/h2>\r\nResponse to SRA consultation on The Future of Authorised Professional Firms<\/p>
<\/a><\/div><\/li>12\/04\/2012 - Response to HMG Consultation on Introducing a Statutory Register of Lobbyists<\/a><\/h2>\r\nResponse to HMG Consultation on Introducing a Statutory Register of Lobbyists<\/p>
<\/a><\/div><\/li>14\/02\/2012 - Response to the SRA's<\/a><\/h2>\r\nResponse to the SRA's \"Regulation of International Practice\" Consultation<\/p>
<\/a><\/div><\/li>17\/01\/2012 - Response to SRA consultation \u201cSRA financial protection review\u201d<\/a><\/h2>\r\nResponse to SRA consultation \u201cSRA financial protection review\u201d<\/p>
<\/a><\/div><\/li>17\/01\/2012 - Minutes of the Meeting held in December 2011<\/a><\/h2>\r\nMinutes of the Meeting held in December 2011<\/p>
<\/a><\/div><\/li>26\/10\/2011 - Minutes from Meeting held in June 2011<\/a><\/h2>\r\nMinutes from Meeting held in June 2011<\/p>
<\/a><\/div><\/li>11\/07\/2011 - Response to SRA Consultation<\/a><\/h2>\r\nResponse to SRA Consultation \"Alternative Business Structures Fee Structure\"<\/p>
<\/a><\/div><\/li>26\/04\/2011 - Response to SRA Consultation<\/a><\/h2>\r\nResponse to SRA Consultation \"Future Client Financial Protection Arrangements\" <\/p>
<\/a><\/div><\/li>28\/02\/2011 - CLLS Response to the SRA Architecture of Change Part 2 Consultation<\/a><\/h2>\r\nCLLS Response to the SRA Architecture of Change Part 2 Consultation<\/p>
<\/a><\/div><\/li>26\/11\/2013 - Response to LSB consultation on Chairs of regulatory bodies: Consultation on an amendment to the Internal Governance Rules to require that the Chairs of the Boards of the regulatory arms of each applicable approved regulator be a lay person.<\/a><\/h2>\r\nThe consultation paper focussed on a proposed amendment to the Internal Governance Rules to require that the Chairs of the Boards of the regulatory arms of each \u201capplicable approved regulator\u201d be a lay person. In its response, the Committee raised a number of points, including that it saw \u201clittle merit in a rule change which necessarily narrows the field of candidates for the role of Chair of these bodies, where no evidence is given to show that the presence of a non-lay Chair has meaningfully impeded the independence of the regulator\u201d.<\/p>
<\/a><\/div><\/li>09\/09\/2013 - Review of the Legal Services Regulatory Framework: CLLS Submission to the Ministry of Justice<\/a><\/h2>\r\nReview of the Legal Services Regulatory Framework: CLLS Submission to the Ministry of Justice.<\/p>
<\/a><\/div><\/li>13\/08\/2013 - Response to Committee on Standards in Public Life Consultation on Lobbying Issues and Questions<\/a><\/h2>\r\n<\/p>
<\/a><\/div><\/li>24\/07\/2013 - Minutes of Meeting held in June 2013<\/a><\/h2>\r\nMinutes of Meeting held in June 2013<\/p>
<\/a><\/div><\/li>08\/07\/2013 - Response to SRA Consultation on New Overseas Rules<\/a><\/h2>\r\nResponse to SRA Consultation on New Overseas Rules<\/p>
<\/a><\/div><\/li>07\/07\/2013 - Response to SRA Consultation on New Overseas Rules \u2013 Comments on Annexes<\/a><\/h2>\r\nResponse to SRA Consultation on New Overseas Rules \u2013 Comments on Annexes<\/p>
<\/a><\/div><\/li>04\/07\/2013 - Response to SRA consultation Red Tape Initiative Phase 2: Removing unnecessary regulations and simplifying processes<\/a><\/h2>\r\nResponse to SRA consultation Red Tape Initiative Phase 2: Removing unnecessary regulations and simplifying processes<\/p>
<\/a><\/div><\/li>19\/04\/2013 - Response to SRA consultation: Indicative guidance on financial penalties<\/a><\/h2>\r\nResponse to SRA consultation: Indicative guidance on financial penalties<\/p>
<\/a><\/div><\/li>25\/03\/2013 - Response to SRA Consultation on Handbook Amendments Relating to International<\/a><\/h2>\r\nResponse to SRA Consultation on Handbook Amendments Relating to International Practice <\/p>
<\/a><\/div><\/li>12\/03\/2013 - Response to the LSB Consultation on its Draft Business Plan 2013<\/a><\/h2>\r\nResponse to the LSB Consultation on its Draft Business Plan 2013<\/p>
<\/a><\/div><\/li>11\/03\/2013 - Minutes of Meeting held in February 2013<\/a><\/h2>\r\nMinutes of Meeting held in February 2013<\/p>
<\/a><\/div><\/li>22\/01\/2013 - Response to SRA Consultation on Co-operation Agreements<\/a><\/h2>\r\nResponse to SRA Consultation on Co-operation Agreements<\/p>
<\/a><\/div><\/li>15\/08\/2012 - Response to SRA consultation on The Future of Authorised Professional Firms<\/a><\/h2>\r\nResponse to SRA consultation on The Future of Authorised Professional Firms<\/p>
<\/a><\/div><\/li>12\/04\/2012 - Response to HMG Consultation on Introducing a Statutory Register of Lobbyists<\/a><\/h2>\r\nResponse to HMG Consultation on Introducing a Statutory Register of Lobbyists<\/p>
<\/a><\/div><\/li>14\/02\/2012 - Response to the SRA's<\/a><\/h2>\r\nResponse to the SRA's \"Regulation of International Practice\" Consultation<\/p>
<\/a><\/div><\/li>17\/01\/2012 - Response to SRA consultation \u201cSRA financial protection review\u201d<\/a><\/h2>\r\nResponse to SRA consultation \u201cSRA financial protection review\u201d<\/p>
<\/a><\/div><\/li>17\/01\/2012 - Minutes of the Meeting held in December 2011<\/a><\/h2>\r\nMinutes of the Meeting held in December 2011<\/p>
<\/a><\/div><\/li>26\/10\/2011 - Minutes from Meeting held in June 2011<\/a><\/h2>\r\nMinutes from Meeting held in June 2011<\/p>
<\/a><\/div><\/li>11\/07\/2011 - Response to SRA Consultation<\/a><\/h2>\r\nResponse to SRA Consultation \"Alternative Business Structures Fee Structure\"<\/p>
<\/a><\/div><\/li>26\/04\/2011 - Response to SRA Consultation<\/a><\/h2>\r\nResponse to SRA Consultation \"Future Client Financial Protection Arrangements\" <\/p>
<\/a><\/div><\/li>28\/02\/2011 - CLLS Response to the SRA Architecture of Change Part 2 Consultation<\/a><\/h2>\r\nCLLS Response to the SRA Architecture of Change Part 2 Consultation<\/p>
<\/a><\/div><\/li>09\/09\/2013 - Review of the Legal Services Regulatory Framework: CLLS Submission to the Ministry of Justice<\/a><\/h2>\r\nReview of the Legal Services Regulatory Framework: CLLS Submission to the Ministry of Justice.<\/p>
<\/a><\/div><\/li>13\/08\/2013 - Response to Committee on Standards in Public Life Consultation on Lobbying Issues and Questions<\/a><\/h2>\r\n<\/p>
<\/a><\/div><\/li>24\/07\/2013 - Minutes of Meeting held in June 2013<\/a><\/h2>\r\nMinutes of Meeting held in June 2013<\/p>
<\/a><\/div><\/li>08\/07\/2013 - Response to SRA Consultation on New Overseas Rules<\/a><\/h2>\r\nResponse to SRA Consultation on New Overseas Rules<\/p>
<\/a><\/div><\/li>07\/07\/2013 - Response to SRA Consultation on New Overseas Rules \u2013 Comments on Annexes<\/a><\/h2>\r\nResponse to SRA Consultation on New Overseas Rules \u2013 Comments on Annexes<\/p>
<\/a><\/div><\/li>04\/07\/2013 - Response to SRA consultation Red Tape Initiative Phase 2: Removing unnecessary regulations and simplifying processes<\/a><\/h2>\r\nResponse to SRA consultation Red Tape Initiative Phase 2: Removing unnecessary regulations and simplifying processes<\/p>
<\/a><\/div><\/li>19\/04\/2013 - Response to SRA consultation: Indicative guidance on financial penalties<\/a><\/h2>\r\nResponse to SRA consultation: Indicative guidance on financial penalties<\/p>
<\/a><\/div><\/li>25\/03\/2013 - Response to SRA Consultation on Handbook Amendments Relating to International<\/a><\/h2>\r\nResponse to SRA Consultation on Handbook Amendments Relating to International Practice <\/p>
<\/a><\/div><\/li>12\/03\/2013 - Response to the LSB Consultation on its Draft Business Plan 2013<\/a><\/h2>\r\nResponse to the LSB Consultation on its Draft Business Plan 2013<\/p>
<\/a><\/div><\/li>11\/03\/2013 - Minutes of Meeting held in February 2013<\/a><\/h2>\r\nMinutes of Meeting held in February 2013<\/p>
<\/a><\/div><\/li>22\/01\/2013 - Response to SRA Consultation on Co-operation Agreements<\/a><\/h2>\r\nResponse to SRA Consultation on Co-operation Agreements<\/p>
<\/a><\/div><\/li>15\/08\/2012 - Response to SRA consultation on The Future of Authorised Professional Firms<\/a><\/h2>\r\nResponse to SRA consultation on The Future of Authorised Professional Firms<\/p>
<\/a><\/div><\/li>12\/04\/2012 - Response to HMG Consultation on Introducing a Statutory Register of Lobbyists<\/a><\/h2>\r\nResponse to HMG Consultation on Introducing a Statutory Register of Lobbyists<\/p>
<\/a><\/div><\/li>14\/02\/2012 - Response to the SRA's<\/a><\/h2>\r\nResponse to the SRA's \"Regulation of International Practice\" Consultation<\/p>
<\/a><\/div><\/li>17\/01\/2012 - Response to SRA consultation \u201cSRA financial protection review\u201d<\/a><\/h2>\r\nResponse to SRA consultation \u201cSRA financial protection review\u201d<\/p>
<\/a><\/div><\/li>17\/01\/2012 - Minutes of the Meeting held in December 2011<\/a><\/h2>\r\nMinutes of the Meeting held in December 2011<\/p>
<\/a><\/div><\/li>26\/10\/2011 - Minutes from Meeting held in June 2011<\/a><\/h2>\r\nMinutes from Meeting held in June 2011<\/p>
<\/a><\/div><\/li>11\/07\/2011 - Response to SRA Consultation<\/a><\/h2>\r\nResponse to SRA Consultation \"Alternative Business Structures Fee Structure\"<\/p>
<\/a><\/div><\/li>26\/04\/2011 - Response to SRA Consultation<\/a><\/h2>\r\nResponse to SRA Consultation \"Future Client Financial Protection Arrangements\" <\/p>
<\/a><\/div><\/li>28\/02\/2011 - CLLS Response to the SRA Architecture of Change Part 2 Consultation<\/a><\/h2>\r\nCLLS Response to the SRA Architecture of Change Part 2 Consultation<\/p>
<\/a><\/div><\/li>13\/08\/2013 - Response to Committee on Standards in Public Life Consultation on Lobbying Issues and Questions<\/a><\/h2>\r\n<\/p>
<\/a><\/div><\/li>24\/07\/2013 - Minutes of Meeting held in June 2013<\/a><\/h2>\r\nMinutes of Meeting held in June 2013<\/p>
<\/a><\/div><\/li>08\/07\/2013 - Response to SRA Consultation on New Overseas Rules<\/a><\/h2>\r\nResponse to SRA Consultation on New Overseas Rules<\/p>
<\/a><\/div><\/li>07\/07\/2013 - Response to SRA Consultation on New Overseas Rules \u2013 Comments on Annexes<\/a><\/h2>\r\nResponse to SRA Consultation on New Overseas Rules \u2013 Comments on Annexes<\/p>
<\/a><\/div><\/li>04\/07\/2013 - Response to SRA consultation Red Tape Initiative Phase 2: Removing unnecessary regulations and simplifying processes<\/a><\/h2>\r\nResponse to SRA consultation Red Tape Initiative Phase 2: Removing unnecessary regulations and simplifying processes<\/p>
<\/a><\/div><\/li>19\/04\/2013 - Response to SRA consultation: Indicative guidance on financial penalties<\/a><\/h2>\r\nResponse to SRA consultation: Indicative guidance on financial penalties<\/p>
<\/a><\/div><\/li>25\/03\/2013 - Response to SRA Consultation on Handbook Amendments Relating to International<\/a><\/h2>\r\nResponse to SRA Consultation on Handbook Amendments Relating to International Practice <\/p>
<\/a><\/div><\/li>12\/03\/2013 - Response to the LSB Consultation on its Draft Business Plan 2013<\/a><\/h2>\r\nResponse to the LSB Consultation on its Draft Business Plan 2013<\/p>
<\/a><\/div><\/li>11\/03\/2013 - Minutes of Meeting held in February 2013<\/a><\/h2>\r\nMinutes of Meeting held in February 2013<\/p>
<\/a><\/div><\/li>22\/01\/2013 - Response to SRA Consultation on Co-operation Agreements<\/a><\/h2>\r\nResponse to SRA Consultation on Co-operation Agreements<\/p>
<\/a><\/div><\/li>15\/08\/2012 - Response to SRA consultation on The Future of Authorised Professional Firms<\/a><\/h2>\r\nResponse to SRA consultation on The Future of Authorised Professional Firms<\/p>
<\/a><\/div><\/li>12\/04\/2012 - Response to HMG Consultation on Introducing a Statutory Register of Lobbyists<\/a><\/h2>\r\nResponse to HMG Consultation on Introducing a Statutory Register of Lobbyists<\/p>
<\/a><\/div><\/li>14\/02\/2012 - Response to the SRA's<\/a><\/h2>\r\nResponse to the SRA's \"Regulation of International Practice\" Consultation<\/p>
<\/a><\/div><\/li>17\/01\/2012 - Response to SRA consultation \u201cSRA financial protection review\u201d<\/a><\/h2>\r\nResponse to SRA consultation \u201cSRA financial protection review\u201d<\/p>
<\/a><\/div><\/li>17\/01\/2012 - Minutes of the Meeting held in December 2011<\/a><\/h2>\r\nMinutes of the Meeting held in December 2011<\/p>
<\/a><\/div><\/li>26\/10\/2011 - Minutes from Meeting held in June 2011<\/a><\/h2>\r\nMinutes from Meeting held in June 2011<\/p>
<\/a><\/div><\/li>11\/07\/2011 - Response to SRA Consultation<\/a><\/h2>\r\nResponse to SRA Consultation \"Alternative Business Structures Fee Structure\"<\/p>
<\/a><\/div><\/li>26\/04\/2011 - Response to SRA Consultation<\/a><\/h2>\r\nResponse to SRA Consultation \"Future Client Financial Protection Arrangements\" <\/p>
<\/a><\/div><\/li>28\/02\/2011 - CLLS Response to the SRA Architecture of Change Part 2 Consultation<\/a><\/h2>\r\nCLLS Response to the SRA Architecture of Change Part 2 Consultation<\/p>
<\/a><\/div><\/li>24\/07\/2013 - Minutes of Meeting held in June 2013<\/a><\/h2>\r\nMinutes of Meeting held in June 2013<\/p>
<\/a><\/div><\/li>08\/07\/2013 - Response to SRA Consultation on New Overseas Rules<\/a><\/h2>\r\nResponse to SRA Consultation on New Overseas Rules<\/p>
<\/a><\/div><\/li>07\/07\/2013 - Response to SRA Consultation on New Overseas Rules \u2013 Comments on Annexes<\/a><\/h2>\r\nResponse to SRA Consultation on New Overseas Rules \u2013 Comments on Annexes<\/p>
<\/a><\/div><\/li>04\/07\/2013 - Response to SRA consultation Red Tape Initiative Phase 2: Removing unnecessary regulations and simplifying processes<\/a><\/h2>\r\nResponse to SRA consultation Red Tape Initiative Phase 2: Removing unnecessary regulations and simplifying processes<\/p>
<\/a><\/div><\/li>19\/04\/2013 - Response to SRA consultation: Indicative guidance on financial penalties<\/a><\/h2>\r\nResponse to SRA consultation: Indicative guidance on financial penalties<\/p>
<\/a><\/div><\/li>25\/03\/2013 - Response to SRA Consultation on Handbook Amendments Relating to International<\/a><\/h2>\r\nResponse to SRA Consultation on Handbook Amendments Relating to International Practice <\/p>
<\/a><\/div><\/li>12\/03\/2013 - Response to the LSB Consultation on its Draft Business Plan 2013<\/a><\/h2>\r\nResponse to the LSB Consultation on its Draft Business Plan 2013<\/p>
<\/a><\/div><\/li>11\/03\/2013 - Minutes of Meeting held in February 2013<\/a><\/h2>\r\nMinutes of Meeting held in February 2013<\/p>
<\/a><\/div><\/li>22\/01\/2013 - Response to SRA Consultation on Co-operation Agreements<\/a><\/h2>\r\nResponse to SRA Consultation on Co-operation Agreements<\/p>
<\/a><\/div><\/li>15\/08\/2012 - Response to SRA consultation on The Future of Authorised Professional Firms<\/a><\/h2>\r\nResponse to SRA consultation on The Future of Authorised Professional Firms<\/p>
<\/a><\/div><\/li>12\/04\/2012 - Response to HMG Consultation on Introducing a Statutory Register of Lobbyists<\/a><\/h2>\r\nResponse to HMG Consultation on Introducing a Statutory Register of Lobbyists<\/p>
<\/a><\/div><\/li>14\/02\/2012 - Response to the SRA's<\/a><\/h2>\r\nResponse to the SRA's \"Regulation of International Practice\" Consultation<\/p>
<\/a><\/div><\/li>17\/01\/2012 - Response to SRA consultation \u201cSRA financial protection review\u201d<\/a><\/h2>\r\nResponse to SRA consultation \u201cSRA financial protection review\u201d<\/p>
<\/a><\/div><\/li>17\/01\/2012 - Minutes of the Meeting held in December 2011<\/a><\/h2>\r\nMinutes of the Meeting held in December 2011<\/p>
<\/a><\/div><\/li>26\/10\/2011 - Minutes from Meeting held in June 2011<\/a><\/h2>\r\nMinutes from Meeting held in June 2011<\/p>
<\/a><\/div><\/li>11\/07\/2011 - Response to SRA Consultation<\/a><\/h2>\r\nResponse to SRA Consultation \"Alternative Business Structures Fee Structure\"<\/p>
<\/a><\/div><\/li>26\/04\/2011 - Response to SRA Consultation<\/a><\/h2>\r\nResponse to SRA Consultation \"Future Client Financial Protection Arrangements\" <\/p>
<\/a><\/div><\/li>28\/02\/2011 - CLLS Response to the SRA Architecture of Change Part 2 Consultation<\/a><\/h2>\r\nCLLS Response to the SRA Architecture of Change Part 2 Consultation<\/p>
<\/a><\/div><\/li>08\/07\/2013 - Response to SRA Consultation on New Overseas Rules<\/a><\/h2>\r\nResponse to SRA Consultation on New Overseas Rules<\/p>
<\/a><\/div><\/li>07\/07\/2013 - Response to SRA Consultation on New Overseas Rules \u2013 Comments on Annexes<\/a><\/h2>\r\nResponse to SRA Consultation on New Overseas Rules \u2013 Comments on Annexes<\/p>
<\/a><\/div><\/li>04\/07\/2013 - Response to SRA consultation Red Tape Initiative Phase 2: Removing unnecessary regulations and simplifying processes<\/a><\/h2>\r\nResponse to SRA consultation Red Tape Initiative Phase 2: Removing unnecessary regulations and simplifying processes<\/p>
<\/a><\/div><\/li>19\/04\/2013 - Response to SRA consultation: Indicative guidance on financial penalties<\/a><\/h2>\r\nResponse to SRA consultation: Indicative guidance on financial penalties<\/p>
<\/a><\/div><\/li>25\/03\/2013 - Response to SRA Consultation on Handbook Amendments Relating to International<\/a><\/h2>\r\nResponse to SRA Consultation on Handbook Amendments Relating to International Practice <\/p>
<\/a><\/div><\/li>12\/03\/2013 - Response to the LSB Consultation on its Draft Business Plan 2013<\/a><\/h2>\r\nResponse to the LSB Consultation on its Draft Business Plan 2013<\/p>
<\/a><\/div><\/li>11\/03\/2013 - Minutes of Meeting held in February 2013<\/a><\/h2>\r\nMinutes of Meeting held in February 2013<\/p>
<\/a><\/div><\/li>22\/01\/2013 - Response to SRA Consultation on Co-operation Agreements<\/a><\/h2>\r\nResponse to SRA Consultation on Co-operation Agreements<\/p>
<\/a><\/div><\/li>15\/08\/2012 - Response to SRA consultation on The Future of Authorised Professional Firms<\/a><\/h2>\r\nResponse to SRA consultation on The Future of Authorised Professional Firms<\/p>
<\/a><\/div><\/li>12\/04\/2012 - Response to HMG Consultation on Introducing a Statutory Register of Lobbyists<\/a><\/h2>\r\nResponse to HMG Consultation on Introducing a Statutory Register of Lobbyists<\/p>
<\/a><\/div><\/li>14\/02\/2012 - Response to the SRA's<\/a><\/h2>\r\nResponse to the SRA's \"Regulation of International Practice\" Consultation<\/p>
<\/a><\/div><\/li>17\/01\/2012 - Response to SRA consultation \u201cSRA financial protection review\u201d<\/a><\/h2>\r\nResponse to SRA consultation \u201cSRA financial protection review\u201d<\/p>
<\/a><\/div><\/li>17\/01\/2012 - Minutes of the Meeting held in December 2011<\/a><\/h2>\r\nMinutes of the Meeting held in December 2011<\/p>
<\/a><\/div><\/li>26\/10\/2011 - Minutes from Meeting held in June 2011<\/a><\/h2>\r\nMinutes from Meeting held in June 2011<\/p>
<\/a><\/div><\/li>11\/07\/2011 - Response to SRA Consultation<\/a><\/h2>\r\nResponse to SRA Consultation \"Alternative Business Structures Fee Structure\"<\/p>
<\/a><\/div><\/li>26\/04\/2011 - Response to SRA Consultation<\/a><\/h2>\r\nResponse to SRA Consultation \"Future Client Financial Protection Arrangements\" <\/p>
<\/a><\/div><\/li>28\/02\/2011 - CLLS Response to the SRA Architecture of Change Part 2 Consultation<\/a><\/h2>\r\nCLLS Response to the SRA Architecture of Change Part 2 Consultation<\/p>
<\/a><\/div><\/li>07\/07\/2013 - Response to SRA Consultation on New Overseas Rules \u2013 Comments on Annexes<\/a><\/h2>\r\nResponse to SRA Consultation on New Overseas Rules \u2013 Comments on Annexes<\/p>
<\/a><\/div><\/li>04\/07\/2013 - Response to SRA consultation Red Tape Initiative Phase 2: Removing unnecessary regulations and simplifying processes<\/a><\/h2>\r\nResponse to SRA consultation Red Tape Initiative Phase 2: Removing unnecessary regulations and simplifying processes<\/p>
<\/a><\/div><\/li>19\/04\/2013 - Response to SRA consultation: Indicative guidance on financial penalties<\/a><\/h2>\r\nResponse to SRA consultation: Indicative guidance on financial penalties<\/p>
<\/a><\/div><\/li>25\/03\/2013 - Response to SRA Consultation on Handbook Amendments Relating to International<\/a><\/h2>\r\nResponse to SRA Consultation on Handbook Amendments Relating to International Practice <\/p>
<\/a><\/div><\/li>12\/03\/2013 - Response to the LSB Consultation on its Draft Business Plan 2013<\/a><\/h2>\r\nResponse to the LSB Consultation on its Draft Business Plan 2013<\/p>
<\/a><\/div><\/li>11\/03\/2013 - Minutes of Meeting held in February 2013<\/a><\/h2>\r\nMinutes of Meeting held in February 2013<\/p>
<\/a><\/div><\/li>22\/01\/2013 - Response to SRA Consultation on Co-operation Agreements<\/a><\/h2>\r\nResponse to SRA Consultation on Co-operation Agreements<\/p>
<\/a><\/div><\/li>15\/08\/2012 - Response to SRA consultation on The Future of Authorised Professional Firms<\/a><\/h2>\r\nResponse to SRA consultation on The Future of Authorised Professional Firms<\/p>
<\/a><\/div><\/li>12\/04\/2012 - Response to HMG Consultation on Introducing a Statutory Register of Lobbyists<\/a><\/h2>\r\nResponse to HMG Consultation on Introducing a Statutory Register of Lobbyists<\/p>
<\/a><\/div><\/li>14\/02\/2012 - Response to the SRA's<\/a><\/h2>\r\nResponse to the SRA's \"Regulation of International Practice\" Consultation<\/p>
<\/a><\/div><\/li>17\/01\/2012 - Response to SRA consultation \u201cSRA financial protection review\u201d<\/a><\/h2>\r\nResponse to SRA consultation \u201cSRA financial protection review\u201d<\/p>
<\/a><\/div><\/li>17\/01\/2012 - Minutes of the Meeting held in December 2011<\/a><\/h2>\r\nMinutes of the Meeting held in December 2011<\/p>
<\/a><\/div><\/li>26\/10\/2011 - Minutes from Meeting held in June 2011<\/a><\/h2>\r\nMinutes from Meeting held in June 2011<\/p>
<\/a><\/div><\/li>11\/07\/2011 - Response to SRA Consultation<\/a><\/h2>\r\nResponse to SRA Consultation \"Alternative Business Structures Fee Structure\"<\/p>
<\/a><\/div><\/li>26\/04\/2011 - Response to SRA Consultation<\/a><\/h2>\r\nResponse to SRA Consultation \"Future Client Financial Protection Arrangements\" <\/p>
<\/a><\/div><\/li>28\/02\/2011 - CLLS Response to the SRA Architecture of Change Part 2 Consultation<\/a><\/h2>\r\nCLLS Response to the SRA Architecture of Change Part 2 Consultation<\/p>
<\/a><\/div><\/li>04\/07\/2013 - Response to SRA consultation Red Tape Initiative Phase 2: Removing unnecessary regulations and simplifying processes<\/a><\/h2>\r\nResponse to SRA consultation Red Tape Initiative Phase 2: Removing unnecessary regulations and simplifying processes<\/p>
<\/a><\/div><\/li>19\/04\/2013 - Response to SRA consultation: Indicative guidance on financial penalties<\/a><\/h2>\r\nResponse to SRA consultation: Indicative guidance on financial penalties<\/p>
<\/a><\/div><\/li>25\/03\/2013 - Response to SRA Consultation on Handbook Amendments Relating to International<\/a><\/h2>\r\nResponse to SRA Consultation on Handbook Amendments Relating to International Practice <\/p>
<\/a><\/div><\/li>12\/03\/2013 - Response to the LSB Consultation on its Draft Business Plan 2013<\/a><\/h2>\r\nResponse to the LSB Consultation on its Draft Business Plan 2013<\/p>
<\/a><\/div><\/li>11\/03\/2013 - Minutes of Meeting held in February 2013<\/a><\/h2>\r\nMinutes of Meeting held in February 2013<\/p>
<\/a><\/div><\/li>22\/01\/2013 - Response to SRA Consultation on Co-operation Agreements<\/a><\/h2>\r\nResponse to SRA Consultation on Co-operation Agreements<\/p>
<\/a><\/div><\/li>15\/08\/2012 - Response to SRA consultation on The Future of Authorised Professional Firms<\/a><\/h2>\r\nResponse to SRA consultation on The Future of Authorised Professional Firms<\/p>
<\/a><\/div><\/li>12\/04\/2012 - Response to HMG Consultation on Introducing a Statutory Register of Lobbyists<\/a><\/h2>\r\nResponse to HMG Consultation on Introducing a Statutory Register of Lobbyists<\/p>
<\/a><\/div><\/li>14\/02\/2012 - Response to the SRA's<\/a><\/h2>\r\nResponse to the SRA's \"Regulation of International Practice\" Consultation<\/p>
<\/a><\/div><\/li>17\/01\/2012 - Response to SRA consultation \u201cSRA financial protection review\u201d<\/a><\/h2>\r\nResponse to SRA consultation \u201cSRA financial protection review\u201d<\/p>
<\/a><\/div><\/li>17\/01\/2012 - Minutes of the Meeting held in December 2011<\/a><\/h2>\r\nMinutes of the Meeting held in December 2011<\/p>
<\/a><\/div><\/li>26\/10\/2011 - Minutes from Meeting held in June 2011<\/a><\/h2>\r\nMinutes from Meeting held in June 2011<\/p>
<\/a><\/div><\/li>11\/07\/2011 - Response to SRA Consultation<\/a><\/h2>\r\nResponse to SRA Consultation \"Alternative Business Structures Fee Structure\"<\/p>
<\/a><\/div><\/li>26\/04\/2011 - Response to SRA Consultation<\/a><\/h2>\r\nResponse to SRA Consultation \"Future Client Financial Protection Arrangements\" <\/p>
<\/a><\/div><\/li>28\/02\/2011 - CLLS Response to the SRA Architecture of Change Part 2 Consultation<\/a><\/h2>\r\nCLLS Response to the SRA Architecture of Change Part 2 Consultation<\/p>
<\/a><\/div><\/li>19\/04\/2013 - Response to SRA consultation: Indicative guidance on financial penalties<\/a><\/h2>\r\nResponse to SRA consultation: Indicative guidance on financial penalties<\/p>
<\/a><\/div><\/li>25\/03\/2013 - Response to SRA Consultation on Handbook Amendments Relating to International<\/a><\/h2>\r\nResponse to SRA Consultation on Handbook Amendments Relating to International Practice <\/p>
<\/a><\/div><\/li>12\/03\/2013 - Response to the LSB Consultation on its Draft Business Plan 2013<\/a><\/h2>\r\nResponse to the LSB Consultation on its Draft Business Plan 2013<\/p>
<\/a><\/div><\/li>11\/03\/2013 - Minutes of Meeting held in February 2013<\/a><\/h2>\r\nMinutes of Meeting held in February 2013<\/p>
<\/a><\/div><\/li>22\/01\/2013 - Response to SRA Consultation on Co-operation Agreements<\/a><\/h2>\r\nResponse to SRA Consultation on Co-operation Agreements<\/p>
<\/a><\/div><\/li>15\/08\/2012 - Response to SRA consultation on The Future of Authorised Professional Firms<\/a><\/h2>\r\nResponse to SRA consultation on The Future of Authorised Professional Firms<\/p>
<\/a><\/div><\/li>12\/04\/2012 - Response to HMG Consultation on Introducing a Statutory Register of Lobbyists<\/a><\/h2>\r\nResponse to HMG Consultation on Introducing a Statutory Register of Lobbyists<\/p>
<\/a><\/div><\/li>14\/02\/2012 - Response to the SRA's<\/a><\/h2>\r\nResponse to the SRA's \"Regulation of International Practice\" Consultation<\/p>
<\/a><\/div><\/li>17\/01\/2012 - Response to SRA consultation \u201cSRA financial protection review\u201d<\/a><\/h2>\r\nResponse to SRA consultation \u201cSRA financial protection review\u201d<\/p>
<\/a><\/div><\/li>17\/01\/2012 - Minutes of the Meeting held in December 2011<\/a><\/h2>\r\nMinutes of the Meeting held in December 2011<\/p>
<\/a><\/div><\/li>26\/10\/2011 - Minutes from Meeting held in June 2011<\/a><\/h2>\r\nMinutes from Meeting held in June 2011<\/p>
<\/a><\/div><\/li>11\/07\/2011 - Response to SRA Consultation<\/a><\/h2>\r\nResponse to SRA Consultation \"Alternative Business Structures Fee Structure\"<\/p>
<\/a><\/div><\/li>26\/04\/2011 - Response to SRA Consultation<\/a><\/h2>\r\nResponse to SRA Consultation \"Future Client Financial Protection Arrangements\" <\/p>
<\/a><\/div><\/li>28\/02\/2011 - CLLS Response to the SRA Architecture of Change Part 2 Consultation<\/a><\/h2>\r\nCLLS Response to the SRA Architecture of Change Part 2 Consultation<\/p>
<\/a><\/div><\/li>25\/03\/2013 - Response to SRA Consultation on Handbook Amendments Relating to International<\/a><\/h2>\r\nResponse to SRA Consultation on Handbook Amendments Relating to International Practice <\/p>
<\/a><\/div><\/li>12\/03\/2013 - Response to the LSB Consultation on its Draft Business Plan 2013<\/a><\/h2>\r\nResponse to the LSB Consultation on its Draft Business Plan 2013<\/p>
<\/a><\/div><\/li>11\/03\/2013 - Minutes of Meeting held in February 2013<\/a><\/h2>\r\nMinutes of Meeting held in February 2013<\/p>
<\/a><\/div><\/li>22\/01\/2013 - Response to SRA Consultation on Co-operation Agreements<\/a><\/h2>\r\nResponse to SRA Consultation on Co-operation Agreements<\/p>
<\/a><\/div><\/li>15\/08\/2012 - Response to SRA consultation on The Future of Authorised Professional Firms<\/a><\/h2>\r\nResponse to SRA consultation on The Future of Authorised Professional Firms<\/p>
<\/a><\/div><\/li>12\/04\/2012 - Response to HMG Consultation on Introducing a Statutory Register of Lobbyists<\/a><\/h2>\r\nResponse to HMG Consultation on Introducing a Statutory Register of Lobbyists<\/p>
<\/a><\/div><\/li>14\/02\/2012 - Response to the SRA's<\/a><\/h2>\r\nResponse to the SRA's \"Regulation of International Practice\" Consultation<\/p>
<\/a><\/div><\/li>17\/01\/2012 - Response to SRA consultation \u201cSRA financial protection review\u201d<\/a><\/h2>\r\nResponse to SRA consultation \u201cSRA financial protection review\u201d<\/p>
<\/a><\/div><\/li>17\/01\/2012 - Minutes of the Meeting held in December 2011<\/a><\/h2>\r\nMinutes of the Meeting held in December 2011<\/p>
<\/a><\/div><\/li>26\/10\/2011 - Minutes from Meeting held in June 2011<\/a><\/h2>\r\nMinutes from Meeting held in June 2011<\/p>
<\/a><\/div><\/li>11\/07\/2011 - Response to SRA Consultation<\/a><\/h2>\r\nResponse to SRA Consultation \"Alternative Business Structures Fee Structure\"<\/p>
<\/a><\/div><\/li>26\/04\/2011 - Response to SRA Consultation<\/a><\/h2>\r\nResponse to SRA Consultation \"Future Client Financial Protection Arrangements\" <\/p>
<\/a><\/div><\/li>28\/02\/2011 - CLLS Response to the SRA Architecture of Change Part 2 Consultation<\/a><\/h2>\r\nCLLS Response to the SRA Architecture of Change Part 2 Consultation<\/p>
<\/a><\/div><\/li>12\/03\/2013 - Response to the LSB Consultation on its Draft Business Plan 2013<\/a><\/h2>\r\nResponse to the LSB Consultation on its Draft Business Plan 2013<\/p>
<\/a><\/div><\/li>11\/03\/2013 - Minutes of Meeting held in February 2013<\/a><\/h2>\r\nMinutes of Meeting held in February 2013<\/p>
<\/a><\/div><\/li>22\/01\/2013 - Response to SRA Consultation on Co-operation Agreements<\/a><\/h2>\r\nResponse to SRA Consultation on Co-operation Agreements<\/p>
<\/a><\/div><\/li>15\/08\/2012 - Response to SRA consultation on The Future of Authorised Professional Firms<\/a><\/h2>\r\nResponse to SRA consultation on The Future of Authorised Professional Firms<\/p>
<\/a><\/div><\/li>12\/04\/2012 - Response to HMG Consultation on Introducing a Statutory Register of Lobbyists<\/a><\/h2>\r\nResponse to HMG Consultation on Introducing a Statutory Register of Lobbyists<\/p>
<\/a><\/div><\/li>14\/02\/2012 - Response to the SRA's<\/a><\/h2>\r\nResponse to the SRA's \"Regulation of International Practice\" Consultation<\/p>
<\/a><\/div><\/li>17\/01\/2012 - Response to SRA consultation \u201cSRA financial protection review\u201d<\/a><\/h2>\r\nResponse to SRA consultation \u201cSRA financial protection review\u201d<\/p>
<\/a><\/div><\/li>17\/01\/2012 - Minutes of the Meeting held in December 2011<\/a><\/h2>\r\nMinutes of the Meeting held in December 2011<\/p>
<\/a><\/div><\/li>26\/10\/2011 - Minutes from Meeting held in June 2011<\/a><\/h2>\r\nMinutes from Meeting held in June 2011<\/p>
<\/a><\/div><\/li>11\/07\/2011 - Response to SRA Consultation<\/a><\/h2>\r\nResponse to SRA Consultation \"Alternative Business Structures Fee Structure\"<\/p>
<\/a><\/div><\/li>26\/04\/2011 - Response to SRA Consultation<\/a><\/h2>\r\nResponse to SRA Consultation \"Future Client Financial Protection Arrangements\" <\/p>
<\/a><\/div><\/li>28\/02\/2011 - CLLS Response to the SRA Architecture of Change Part 2 Consultation<\/a><\/h2>\r\nCLLS Response to the SRA Architecture of Change Part 2 Consultation<\/p>
<\/a><\/div><\/li>11\/03\/2013 - Minutes of Meeting held in February 2013<\/a><\/h2>\r\nMinutes of Meeting held in February 2013<\/p>
<\/a><\/div><\/li>22\/01\/2013 - Response to SRA Consultation on Co-operation Agreements<\/a><\/h2>\r\nResponse to SRA Consultation on Co-operation Agreements<\/p>
<\/a><\/div><\/li>15\/08\/2012 - Response to SRA consultation on The Future of Authorised Professional Firms<\/a><\/h2>\r\nResponse to SRA consultation on The Future of Authorised Professional Firms<\/p>
<\/a><\/div><\/li>12\/04\/2012 - Response to HMG Consultation on Introducing a Statutory Register of Lobbyists<\/a><\/h2>\r\nResponse to HMG Consultation on Introducing a Statutory Register of Lobbyists<\/p>
<\/a><\/div><\/li>14\/02\/2012 - Response to the SRA's<\/a><\/h2>\r\nResponse to the SRA's \"Regulation of International Practice\" Consultation<\/p>
<\/a><\/div><\/li>17\/01\/2012 - Response to SRA consultation \u201cSRA financial protection review\u201d<\/a><\/h2>\r\nResponse to SRA consultation \u201cSRA financial protection review\u201d<\/p>
<\/a><\/div><\/li>17\/01\/2012 - Minutes of the Meeting held in December 2011<\/a><\/h2>\r\nMinutes of the Meeting held in December 2011<\/p>
<\/a><\/div><\/li>26\/10\/2011 - Minutes from Meeting held in June 2011<\/a><\/h2>\r\nMinutes from Meeting held in June 2011<\/p>
<\/a><\/div><\/li>11\/07\/2011 - Response to SRA Consultation<\/a><\/h2>\r\nResponse to SRA Consultation \"Alternative Business Structures Fee Structure\"<\/p>
<\/a><\/div><\/li>26\/04\/2011 - Response to SRA Consultation<\/a><\/h2>\r\nResponse to SRA Consultation \"Future Client Financial Protection Arrangements\" <\/p>
<\/a><\/div><\/li>28\/02\/2011 - CLLS Response to the SRA Architecture of Change Part 2 Consultation<\/a><\/h2>\r\nCLLS Response to the SRA Architecture of Change Part 2 Consultation<\/p>
<\/a><\/div><\/li>22\/01\/2013 - Response to SRA Consultation on Co-operation Agreements<\/a><\/h2>\r\nResponse to SRA Consultation on Co-operation Agreements<\/p>
<\/a><\/div><\/li>15\/08\/2012 - Response to SRA consultation on The Future of Authorised Professional Firms<\/a><\/h2>\r\nResponse to SRA consultation on The Future of Authorised Professional Firms<\/p>
<\/a><\/div><\/li>12\/04\/2012 - Response to HMG Consultation on Introducing a Statutory Register of Lobbyists<\/a><\/h2>\r\nResponse to HMG Consultation on Introducing a Statutory Register of Lobbyists<\/p>
<\/a><\/div><\/li>14\/02\/2012 - Response to the SRA's<\/a><\/h2>\r\nResponse to the SRA's \"Regulation of International Practice\" Consultation<\/p>
<\/a><\/div><\/li>17\/01\/2012 - Response to SRA consultation \u201cSRA financial protection review\u201d<\/a><\/h2>\r\nResponse to SRA consultation \u201cSRA financial protection review\u201d<\/p>
<\/a><\/div><\/li>17\/01\/2012 - Minutes of the Meeting held in December 2011<\/a><\/h2>\r\nMinutes of the Meeting held in December 2011<\/p>
<\/a><\/div><\/li>26\/10\/2011 - Minutes from Meeting held in June 2011<\/a><\/h2>\r\nMinutes from Meeting held in June 2011<\/p>
<\/a><\/div><\/li>11\/07\/2011 - Response to SRA Consultation<\/a><\/h2>\r\nResponse to SRA Consultation \"Alternative Business Structures Fee Structure\"<\/p>
<\/a><\/div><\/li>26\/04\/2011 - Response to SRA Consultation<\/a><\/h2>\r\nResponse to SRA Consultation \"Future Client Financial Protection Arrangements\" <\/p>
<\/a><\/div><\/li>28\/02\/2011 - CLLS Response to the SRA Architecture of Change Part 2 Consultation<\/a><\/h2>\r\nCLLS Response to the SRA Architecture of Change Part 2 Consultation<\/p>
<\/a><\/div><\/li>15\/08\/2012 - Response to SRA consultation on The Future of Authorised Professional Firms<\/a><\/h2>\r\nResponse to SRA consultation on The Future of Authorised Professional Firms<\/p>
<\/a><\/div><\/li>12\/04\/2012 - Response to HMG Consultation on Introducing a Statutory Register of Lobbyists<\/a><\/h2>\r\nResponse to HMG Consultation on Introducing a Statutory Register of Lobbyists<\/p>
<\/a><\/div><\/li>14\/02\/2012 - Response to the SRA's<\/a><\/h2>\r\nResponse to the SRA's \"Regulation of International Practice\" Consultation<\/p>
<\/a><\/div><\/li>17\/01\/2012 - Response to SRA consultation \u201cSRA financial protection review\u201d<\/a><\/h2>\r\nResponse to SRA consultation \u201cSRA financial protection review\u201d<\/p>
<\/a><\/div><\/li>17\/01\/2012 - Minutes of the Meeting held in December 2011<\/a><\/h2>\r\nMinutes of the Meeting held in December 2011<\/p>
<\/a><\/div><\/li>26\/10\/2011 - Minutes from Meeting held in June 2011<\/a><\/h2>\r\nMinutes from Meeting held in June 2011<\/p>
<\/a><\/div><\/li>11\/07\/2011 - Response to SRA Consultation<\/a><\/h2>\r\nResponse to SRA Consultation \"Alternative Business Structures Fee Structure\"<\/p>
<\/a><\/div><\/li>26\/04\/2011 - Response to SRA Consultation<\/a><\/h2>\r\nResponse to SRA Consultation \"Future Client Financial Protection Arrangements\" <\/p>
<\/a><\/div><\/li>28\/02\/2011 - CLLS Response to the SRA Architecture of Change Part 2 Consultation<\/a><\/h2>\r\nCLLS Response to the SRA Architecture of Change Part 2 Consultation<\/p>
<\/a><\/div><\/li>12\/04\/2012 - Response to HMG Consultation on Introducing a Statutory Register of Lobbyists<\/a><\/h2>\r\nResponse to HMG Consultation on Introducing a Statutory Register of Lobbyists<\/p>
<\/a><\/div><\/li>14\/02\/2012 - Response to the SRA's<\/a><\/h2>\r\nResponse to the SRA's \"Regulation of International Practice\" Consultation<\/p>
<\/a><\/div><\/li>17\/01\/2012 - Response to SRA consultation \u201cSRA financial protection review\u201d<\/a><\/h2>\r\nResponse to SRA consultation \u201cSRA financial protection review\u201d<\/p>
<\/a><\/div><\/li>17\/01\/2012 - Minutes of the Meeting held in December 2011<\/a><\/h2>\r\nMinutes of the Meeting held in December 2011<\/p>
<\/a><\/div><\/li>26\/10\/2011 - Minutes from Meeting held in June 2011<\/a><\/h2>\r\nMinutes from Meeting held in June 2011<\/p>
<\/a><\/div><\/li>11\/07\/2011 - Response to SRA Consultation<\/a><\/h2>\r\nResponse to SRA Consultation \"Alternative Business Structures Fee Structure\"<\/p>
<\/a><\/div><\/li>26\/04\/2011 - Response to SRA Consultation<\/a><\/h2>\r\nResponse to SRA Consultation \"Future Client Financial Protection Arrangements\" <\/p>
<\/a><\/div><\/li>28\/02\/2011 - CLLS Response to the SRA Architecture of Change Part 2 Consultation<\/a><\/h2>\r\nCLLS Response to the SRA Architecture of Change Part 2 Consultation<\/p>
<\/a><\/div><\/li>14\/02\/2012 - Response to the SRA's<\/a><\/h2>\r\nResponse to the SRA's \"Regulation of International Practice\" Consultation<\/p>
<\/a><\/div><\/li>17\/01\/2012 - Response to SRA consultation \u201cSRA financial protection review\u201d<\/a><\/h2>\r\nResponse to SRA consultation \u201cSRA financial protection review\u201d<\/p>
<\/a><\/div><\/li>17\/01\/2012 - Minutes of the Meeting held in December 2011<\/a><\/h2>\r\nMinutes of the Meeting held in December 2011<\/p>
<\/a><\/div><\/li>26\/10\/2011 - Minutes from Meeting held in June 2011<\/a><\/h2>\r\nMinutes from Meeting held in June 2011<\/p>
<\/a><\/div><\/li>11\/07\/2011 - Response to SRA Consultation<\/a><\/h2>\r\nResponse to SRA Consultation \"Alternative Business Structures Fee Structure\"<\/p>
<\/a><\/div><\/li>26\/04\/2011 - Response to SRA Consultation<\/a><\/h2>\r\nResponse to SRA Consultation \"Future Client Financial Protection Arrangements\" <\/p>
<\/a><\/div><\/li>28\/02\/2011 - CLLS Response to the SRA Architecture of Change Part 2 Consultation<\/a><\/h2>\r\nCLLS Response to the SRA Architecture of Change Part 2 Consultation<\/p>
<\/a><\/div><\/li>17\/01\/2012 - Response to SRA consultation \u201cSRA financial protection review\u201d<\/a><\/h2>\r\nResponse to SRA consultation \u201cSRA financial protection review\u201d<\/p>
<\/a><\/div><\/li>17\/01\/2012 - Minutes of the Meeting held in December 2011<\/a><\/h2>\r\nMinutes of the Meeting held in December 2011<\/p>
<\/a><\/div><\/li>26\/10\/2011 - Minutes from Meeting held in June 2011<\/a><\/h2>\r\nMinutes from Meeting held in June 2011<\/p>
<\/a><\/div><\/li>11\/07\/2011 - Response to SRA Consultation<\/a><\/h2>\r\nResponse to SRA Consultation \"Alternative Business Structures Fee Structure\"<\/p>
<\/a><\/div><\/li>26\/04\/2011 - Response to SRA Consultation<\/a><\/h2>\r\nResponse to SRA Consultation \"Future Client Financial Protection Arrangements\" <\/p>
<\/a><\/div><\/li>28\/02\/2011 - CLLS Response to the SRA Architecture of Change Part 2 Consultation<\/a><\/h2>\r\nCLLS Response to the SRA Architecture of Change Part 2 Consultation<\/p>
<\/a><\/div><\/li>17\/01\/2012 - Minutes of the Meeting held in December 2011<\/a><\/h2>\r\nMinutes of the Meeting held in December 2011<\/p>
<\/a><\/div><\/li>26\/10\/2011 - Minutes from Meeting held in June 2011<\/a><\/h2>\r\nMinutes from Meeting held in June 2011<\/p>
<\/a><\/div><\/li>11\/07\/2011 - Response to SRA Consultation<\/a><\/h2>\r\nResponse to SRA Consultation \"Alternative Business Structures Fee Structure\"<\/p>
<\/a><\/div><\/li>26\/04\/2011 - Response to SRA Consultation<\/a><\/h2>\r\nResponse to SRA Consultation \"Future Client Financial Protection Arrangements\" <\/p>
<\/a><\/div><\/li>28\/02\/2011 - CLLS Response to the SRA Architecture of Change Part 2 Consultation<\/a><\/h2>\r\nCLLS Response to the SRA Architecture of Change Part 2 Consultation<\/p>
<\/a><\/div><\/li>26\/10\/2011 - Minutes from Meeting held in June 2011<\/a><\/h2>\r\nMinutes from Meeting held in June 2011<\/p>
<\/a><\/div><\/li>11\/07\/2011 - Response to SRA Consultation<\/a><\/h2>\r\nResponse to SRA Consultation \"Alternative Business Structures Fee Structure\"<\/p>
<\/a><\/div><\/li>26\/04\/2011 - Response to SRA Consultation<\/a><\/h2>\r\nResponse to SRA Consultation \"Future Client Financial Protection Arrangements\" <\/p>
<\/a><\/div><\/li>28\/02\/2011 - CLLS Response to the SRA Architecture of Change Part 2 Consultation<\/a><\/h2>\r\nCLLS Response to the SRA Architecture of Change Part 2 Consultation<\/p>
<\/a><\/div><\/li>11\/07\/2011 - Response to SRA Consultation<\/a><\/h2>\r\nResponse to SRA Consultation \"Alternative Business Structures Fee Structure\"<\/p>
<\/a><\/div><\/li>26\/04\/2011 - Response to SRA Consultation<\/a><\/h2>\r\nResponse to SRA Consultation \"Future Client Financial Protection Arrangements\" <\/p>
<\/a><\/div><\/li>28\/02\/2011 - CLLS Response to the SRA Architecture of Change Part 2 Consultation<\/a><\/h2>\r\nCLLS Response to the SRA Architecture of Change Part 2 Consultation<\/p>
<\/a><\/div><\/li>26\/04\/2011 - Response to SRA Consultation<\/a><\/h2>\r\nResponse to SRA Consultation \"Future Client Financial Protection Arrangements\" <\/p>
<\/a><\/div><\/li>28\/02\/2011 - CLLS Response to the SRA Architecture of Change Part 2 Consultation<\/a><\/h2>\r\nCLLS Response to the SRA Architecture of Change Part 2 Consultation<\/p>
<\/a><\/div><\/li>