DOCSLIB.ORG

Draft SB EIA

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Draft SB EIA ANNEX 4 Consultation Response CONTENTS Page No INTRODUCTION 3-4 OUTCOME OF THE CONSULTATION 4-26 -Summary of Responses by Question 4-5 -Summary of Responses by Theme 5-20 -Standard of Proof 5-10 -The issue of a Lay Majority 11-12 -Fitness to Practise 12-13 -Propensity 13-14 -Vulnerable Witnesses 14-15 -Equality and Diversity Implications 15-19 -Sufficiency of Consultation 19-20 -Other Points 20-26 -Proposed amendments to Rule 25 in respect of Agreed Outcomes 20-21 -Proposed amendments to other draft rules 21-26 NEXT STEPS 26 ANNEXES: Annex 1: Analysis of the responses received Annex 2: Consultation Responses Annex 3: Post Consultation Rules Annex 4: Equality Impact Assessment 2 Introduction 1. The Tribunal is constituted as a statutory tribunal under Section 46 of the Solicitors Act 1974. The Tribunal adjudicates upon alleged breaches of rules or the Solicitors Code of Conduct, which are designed to protect the public and maintain public confidence in the legal profession, by defining standards for honesty, probity, trustworthiness, independence and integrity. The Tribunal also adjudicates upon the alleged misconduct of recognised bodies, registered foreign lawyers and persons employed by solicitors. It also hears applications for restoration to the Solicitors’ Roll. 2. Solicitor Members of the Tribunal are wholly independent of the Council of the Law Society and have no connection with the Solicitors Regulation Authority (“the SRA”), which instigates over 90% of the cases currently dealt with by the Tribunal. 3. Section 46 of the Solicitors Act 1974 enables the Tribunal to make rules about its procedures. The Tribunal already has rules in place (the Solicitors (Disciplinary Proceedings) Rules 2007 (2007 No.3588)) (“2007 Rules”) which are used in relation to the Tribunal’s disciplinary jurisdiction. The Tribunal considers that it needs to update these rules. 4. The Tribunal is also empowered to deal with appeals of various kinds. The Tribunal’s rules in respect of its appellate jurisdiction are the Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal (Appeals and Amendment) Rules 2011 (2011 No.2346) (“Appeal Rules”). As was the case at the time of the consultation, there are no current proposals to change the Appeal Rules. 5. Between 16 July 2018 and 8 October 2018 the Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal (“the Tribunal”) consulted on the making of procedural rules in relation to applications to the Tribunal. The Tribunal published its consultation paper on its website and sent a link to the consultation to the list of consultees at Appendix C of that document and also to the Royal College of Veterinary Surgeons. Consultees were invited to respond to the following questions: (a) Do you consider, in principle, that the Tribunal should change its rules to allow for the civil standard to be applied to cases which it hears (see draft rule 5)? (b) Do you consider in principle that the Tribunal should change its rules to make provision about agreed outcome proposals (see draft rule 25)? 3 (c) Do you consider that the other provisions in the draft rules are fit for purpose? (d) If the answer to question (c) is no, please explain why. (e) Do you have any detailed comments on the drafting of the proposed rules? (f) Do you consider that any of the draft rules could result in any adverse impacts for any of those with protected characteristics under the Equality Act? 6. This document summarises the responses received, the Tribunal’s decisions and the proposed next steps. Outcome of the Consultation 7. Twenty eight external responses were received. A list of all external respondents is at Annex 2 together with a copy of the responses received. 8. Six responses were also received from Members of the Tribunal. Apart from some very specific drafting points the points contained in the Members’ responses were raised in the external responses received. Summary of Responses- By Question 9. Not all of the external respondents answered all questions. In addition a number of consultees responded to certain questions indicating that they had no comment. Question A – 28 responses Question B – 18 responses Question C – 15 responses Question D – 9 responses Question E – 18 responses Question F – 21 responses 10. Set out below is a Summary of Responses by the themes that arose from the responses. Additionally, at Annex 1 there is a summary of the responses provided. 4 11. The responses received that related to specific drafting points have been considered and addressed as part of the analysis of the consultation responses. Lack of specific acknowledgement of such comments in this document should not be taken to mean that those suggestions have not been considered. Summary of Responses – Themes arising from the consultation 12. The Standard of Proof The Responses 12.1 The Tribunal received twenty eight responses in respect of whether or not the Tribunal should change its rules to allow for the civil standard of proof. The responses received covered a range of issues and are set out in more detail in Annex 1 and are appended in full at Annex 2. The key issues raised were public interest, protection and confidence and the impact on individual solicitors facing proceedings before the Tribunal. 12.2 The consensus amongst those who support the retention of the criminal standard of proof is that it provides sufficient safeguards to protect the public and maintain the reputation of the profession. Further it was argued that the criminal standard ensures that any allegations against an individual solicitor are thoroughly investigated prior to proceedings being instigated and that the evidence is tested before the Tribunal. Concern was raised that the civil standard of proof was inappropriate given the seriousness of professional misconduct proceedings and the impact on a solicitor’s career if allegations, particularly those involving dishonesty, are found proved. 12.3 Those who supported a change from the criminal to the civil standard raised public perception, the fact that other regulatory bodies applied the civil standard and the lack of justification for the retention of the higher standard. They argued that retention of the criminal standard could be viewed as the profession protecting its members. Comment 12.4 Under Rule 10 of the SRA Disciplinary Procedure Rules 2011, in deciding whether or not to instigate proceedings before the Tribunal, the SRA applies an evidential test. This test considers whether there is sufficient evidence to provide a realistic prospect that the application will be upheld by the Tribunal, whether the Tribunal is 5 likely to revoke a firm's authorisation or to impose a penalty that the SRA are unable to; and whether it is in the public interest to make the application. 12.5 The evaluation under the first limb of the evidential test will necessarily have to take into account the standard of proof applied by the Tribunal at the relevant time. The Tribunal does not anticipate that any change to its standard of proof would alter the investigation and evidence gathering that will be necessary before this test can be properly applied. Irrespective of the standard of proof that the Tribunal applies the Tribunal expects the parties to place cogent evidence before it. Whilst the SRA noted in its response that the use of the criminal standard of proof was costly the Tribunal does not consider that the costs of bringing proceedings will be affected by the standard of proof it applies because of the need for clear and cogent evidence. 12.6 The Tribunal will continue to scrutinise the evidence before it with as much care as ever in reaching its findings. It is clearly established that the more serious the allegation the more cogent the evidence needs to be to prove the allegation (Re B (Children) [2008] UKHL 35). This applies whichever standard of proof is applied. Robust decision making processes and careful, thorough evaluation of the evidence are already embedded as part of the Tribunal’s decision making processes and are an important safeguard. 12.7 Irrespective of the standard of proof the Tribunal will continue to operate with the objective of ensuring that the standards and reputation of the solicitors’ profession must be maintained. Bolton v The Law Society [1994] 1 WLR 512 sets out the fundamental principle and purposes of the imposition of sanctions by the Tribunal and states: “…the most fundamental of all: to maintain the reputation of the solicitors' profession as one in which every member, of whatever standing, may be trusted to the ends of the earth … a member of the public … is ordinarily entitled to expect that the solicitor will be a person whose trustworthiness is not, and never has been, seriously in question. Otherwise, the whole profession, and the public as a whole, is injured. A profession's most valuable asset is its collective reputation and the confidence which that inspires.” (per Bingham, then Master of the Rolls) 12.8 The Tribunal’s overriding objective is to ensure that all cases brought before it are dealt with justly and in accordance with the Tribunal’s duty to protect the public from harm. The Tribunal must ensure public confidence in the reputation of providers of legal services is maintained. 6 12.9 There is no empirical evidence to assist the Tribunal in reaching its conclusions as to which standard of proof it should apply. A number of the responses referred to suggested figures for a prosecution “success rate”. These figures had not been calculated by the Tribunal and may or may not be accurate. Reference to the type of allegation in the Tribunal’s Annual Report is categorised per allegation and not per case so there will be significantly more allegations than cases and the percentages quoted in the Annual Report need to be viewed in this context.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Moving Towards a Fairer Fee Policy: Report on Responses to Consultation
    Moving towards a fairer fee policy Report on responses to consultation paper 19 Table of contents Introduction .......................................................................................................................... 2 Responses to the questions................................................................................................. 4 Principles and objectives of any new fee structure....................................................... 4 Preferred Models .......................................................................................................... 8 Special Cases............................................................................................................. 11 Compensation Fund ................................................................................................... 13 Impacts of the new regime on private practice ........................................................... 15 Conclusions ....................................................................................................................... 16 30/10/2009 1 www.sra.org.uk Introduction 1. The consultation paper, Moving towards a Fairer Fee Policy, was part of the first phase of an engagement strategy designed to collate views of the profession, its representative bodies and other stakeholders on how the costs of regulation should be shared and what the best approach to establish a fairer fee charging structure should be. It also dealt with new ways of setting compensation fund contributions. 2. The consultation
    [Show full text]
  • Draft Authorisation Framework for the Approval of Education and Training
    Authorisation Framework for the Approval of Education and Training Organisations (DRAFT 9.3, 3 October 2017) BSB Authorisation Framework CONTENTS Table of Contents PREAMBLE ............................................................................................................... 2 INTRODUCTION ........................................................................................................ 2 COMPONENTS AND PATHWAYS ........................................................................... 4 AUTHORISATION, RE-AUTHORISATION AND MONITORING............................... 8 THE FOUR PRINCIPLES – WHAT THEY MEAN .................................................... 10 FLEXIBILITY ....................................................................................................................... 10 ACCESSIBILITY ................................................................................................................. 11 AFFORDABILITY ................................................................................................................ 12 HIGH STANDARDS ............................................................................................................ 13 THE FOUR PRINCIPLES – WHAT THE BSB WANTS TO SEE - INDICATORS ... 14 FLEXIBILITY ....................................................................................................................... 14 Strategic Goals and Oversight ......................................................................................... 14 Education and Training ...................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Meeting of the Bar Standards Board
    Meeting of the Bar Standards Board Thursday 27 November 2014, 4.30 pm Room 1, First Floor, Bar Standards Board Offices, 289-293 High Holborn, London, WC1V 7HZ Agenda Part 1 – Public Page 1. Welcome and introductions Chair (4.30 pm) 2. Apologies Chair 3. Members’ interests and hospitality Chair 4. Approval of Part 1 (public) minutes: 23 October 2014 Annex A 3-10 5. Matters Arising Chair’s sign off of BTT Handbook; BPTC Handbook; General Guide to CPD; Pupillage Handbook. 6. a) Action points and progress Annex B Chair 11-16 b) Forward agendas Annex C Chair 17-18 Items for discussion 7. Performance Report for Q2 (Jul – Sept 2014) BSB 082 (14) Anne Wright 19-36 (4.40 pm) 8. BSB annual report on BTAS and the Browne BSB 083 (14) Vanessa Davies 37-53 recommendations (5.00 pm) 9. Chair’s Report on Visits and Meetings: BSB 084 (14) Chair 55-56 Oct 14 – Nov 14 10. Director General’s Report BSB 085 (14) Vanessa Davies 57-68 (5.20 pm) 11. Any other business (5.25 pm) 12. Date of next meetings Thursday 11 December 2014 (Board Away Day) Thursday 29 January 2015 (full Board meeting) 13. Private Session John Picken, Board & Committees Officer [email protected] 20 November 2014 BSB 271114 2 ANNEX A Part 1 - Public Part 1 - Public Minutes of the Bar Standards Board meeting Thursday 23 October 2014, Room 1.1, First Floor 289 – 293 High Holborn, London, WC1V 7HZ Present: Ruth Deech QC (Hon) (Chair) Patricia Robertson QC (Vice Chair) Rolande Anderson Rob Behrens Sarah Clarke (items 7-17) Justine Davidge Tim Robinson Andrew Sanders Anne Wright
    [Show full text]
  • The Bsb Handbook Part Ii
    Annexe D Part II: The Code of Conduct THE BSB HANDBOOK PART II – THE CODE OF CONDUCT CONTENTS A. APPLICATION B. THE CORE DUTIES C. THE CONDUCT RULES C1 YOU AND THE COURT C2 BEHAVING ETHICALLY C3 YOU AND YOUR CLIENT C4 YOU AND YOUR REGULATOR C5 YOU AND YOUR PRACTICE C5.1 GENERAL C5.2 SELF-EMPLOYED BARRISTERS C5.3 CHAMBERS C.5.4 ENTITIES D. RULES APPLYING TO SPECIFIC GROUPS OF REGULATED PERSONS D1 SELF-EMPLOYED BARRISTERS, CHAMBERS, BSB AUTHORISED BODIES AND THEIR MANAGERS D1.1 COMPLAINTS RULES D1.2 EQUALITY AND DIVERSITY D1.3 PUPILLAGE FUNDING AND ADVERTISING D2 BARRISTERS UNDERTAKING PUBLIC ACCESS OR LICENSED ACCESS WORK D2.1 PUBLIC ACCESS RULES D2.2 LICENSED ACCESS RULES D3 PRACTISING BARRISTERS OR ENTITIES PROVIDING CRIMINAL ADVOCACY D4.1 QASA RULES1 1 To be added later 1 Annexe D Part II: The Code of Conduct D4 REGISTERED EUROPEAN LAWYERS D5 UNREGISTERED BARRISTERS D6 CROSS BORDER ACTIVITIES WITHIN THE EUROPEAN UNION AND THE EUROPEAN ECONOMIC AREA2 2 To be added later 2 Part II : The Code of Conduct Section A: Application A. APPLICATION II.A1. [Link to main introduction] II.A2. Who? II.A2.1 Section II.B (Core Duties): applies to all BSB regulated persons except where stated otherwise, and references to "you" and "your" in Section II.B shall be construed accordingly. II.A2.2 Section II.C (Conduct Rules): (a) Applies to all BSB regulated persons apart from unregistered barristers except where stated otherwise. (b) Rules II.C1.R2, II.C1.R3, II.C2.R1, II.C3.R2, II.C3.R5 and II.C4.R1 to II.C4.R7 (and associated guidance to those rules) and the guidance on Core Duties also apply to unregistered barristers.
    [Show full text]
  • Professional Courses GDL/CPE, LPC, BPTC and LLM Contents
    Bristol Institute of Legal Practice www.uwe.ac.uk Professional Courses GDL/CPE, LPC, BPTC and LLM Contents Why choose Bristol Institute of Legal 3 Practice (BILP)? Enhancing employability 4 Careers and student support 5 Graduate Diploma in Law/CPE (GDL/CPE) 9 (full-time and part-time) Legal Practice Course (LPC) 14 (full-time and part-time) Bar Professional Training Course (BPTC) 25 (full-time and part-time) LLM Advanced Legal Practice 29 Visit us 30 Financial Information 30 2 www.uwe.ac.uk/bilp Why choose Bristol Institute of Legal Practice? The Bristol Institute of Legal Practice (BILP) is part of the wider Faculty of Business and Law at UWE (which comprises Bristol Law School and Bristol Business School). With more than forty years’ successful involvement in professional vocational legal education, a strong national and international reputation and established links with both legal professions and business, we are widely recognised as one of the leading providers of professional legal education in the UK. We have a reputation for excellence within the legal profession and for delivering courses of the very highest quality. BILP’s professional courses will provide you with a foundation for a career in Law that is hard to match. • We understand that students today face increasing competition to secure employment in a challenging and rapidly changing market place and we put great emphasis on the careers support and added business focus that we give our students. • Our LPC is one of a very few providers nationally to have continuously held the SRA’s highest possible grading of ‘excellent’.
    [Show full text]
  • Future Bar Training Consultation on The
    Annex 1 to BSB Paper 002 (16) Part 1 – Public Future Bar Training Consultation on the Future of Training for the Bar: Academic, Vocational and Professional Stages of Training Summary of responses January 2016 BSB 280116 Annex 1 to BSB Paper 002 (16) Part 1 – Public Executive Summary Background to the consultation In summer 2013, the Bar Standards Board (BSB), the Solicitors Regulation Authority (SRA) and ILEX Professional Standards (IPS; now called CILEX Regulation) published the Legal Education and Training Review (LETR). This was a large, independent review of the system of training legal professionals in England and Wales. The review recognised many good features in the system for training barristers. It also looked to the future and recommended reform so that training would be better matched for barristers and clients in 2020 and beyond. In February 2015, we published our vision for the future of training for the Bar. In that paper, we set out our proposal for a Professional Statement that describes the standards that should be expected of all authorised barristers upon entry to the profession. In addition, we explained why we were embarking on a review of how we are involved in setting education and training requirements for barristers. The Future Bar Training consultation, launched in the summer of 2015, built on that paper, exploring what changes might be made to the current system. It examined possible approaches to reform of the system and regulatory requirements, and considered the current three-stage formulation of training. Responses to the consultation There were 58 responses to the consultation.
    [Show full text]
  • Northumbria Research Link
    Northumbria Research Link Citation: Mckeown, Paul (2019) “We don’t need no thought control” What is the intent and impact of teaching values in clinical legal education? Doctoral thesis, Northumbria University. This version was downloaded from Northumbria Research Link: http://nrl.northumbria.ac.uk/id/eprint/43950/ Northumbria University has developed Northumbria Research Link (NRL) to enable users to access the University’s research output. Copyright © and moral rights for items on NRL are retained by the individual author(s) and/or other copyright owners. Single copies of full items can be reproduced, displayed or performed, and given to third parties in any format or medium for personal research or study, educational, or not-for-profit purposes without prior permission or charge, provided the authors, title and full bibliographic details are given, as well as a hyperlink and/or URL to the original metadata page. The content must not be changed in any way. Full items must not be sold commercially in any format or medium without formal permission of the copyright holder. The full policy is available online: http://nrl.northumbria.ac.uk/pol i cies.html “WE DON’T NEED NO THOUGHT CONTROL” WHAT IS THE INTENT AND IMPACT OF TEACHING VALUES IN CLINICAL LEGAL EDUCATION? Paul McKeown Northumbria Law School A written commentary submitted in partial fulfilment of the requirements of the University of Northumbria at Newcastle for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy by Published Work October 2019 For Fraser and Aoife Declaration I declare that no outputs submitted for this degree have been submitted for a research degree of any other institution.
    [Show full text]
  • Katherine Jane Lumsdon and Others -V- Legal Services Board and Others
    Neutral Citation Number: [2013] EWHC 28 (Admin) Case No: CO/12583/2013 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE QUEEN'S BENCH DIVISION DIVISIONAL COURT Royal Courts of Justice Strand, London, WC2A 2LL Date: 20/01/2014 Before : THE PRESIDENT OF THE QUEEN’S BENCH DIVISION (SIR BRIAN LEVESON) MR JUSTICE BEAN MR JUSTICE CRANSTON BETWEEN THE QUEEN on the application of (1) KATHERINE JANE LUMSDON (2) RUFUS TAYLOR (3) DAVID HOWKER QC (4) CHRISTOPHER HEWERTSON Claimants - and - LEGAL SERVICES BOARD Defendant - and - (1) GENERAL COUNCIL OF THE BAR (acting by the BAR STANDARDS BOARD) (2) SOLICITORS REGULATION AUTHORITY (3) ILEX PROFESSIONAL STANDARDS (4) LAW SOCIETY Interested Parties Dinah Rose QC, Tom de la Mare QC, Mark Trafford, Charlotte Kilroy and Jana Sadler- Forster (instructed by Baker & McKenzie) for the Claimants Nigel Giffin QC and Duncan Sinclair (instructed by Field Fisher Waterhouse) for the Defendant (LSB) Timothy Dutton QC and Tetyana Nesterchuk (instructed by Bevan Brittan) for the First Interested Party (BSB) Chloe Carpenter (instructed by Kingsley Napley) for the Second Interested Party (SRA) Helen Mountfield QC and Chris Buttler (instructed by Natalie Turner) for the Fourth Interested Party (Law Society) The Third Interested Party did not appear and was not represented Hearing dates: 28-29 November and 2 December 2013 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Approved Judgment Judgment Approved by the court for handing down. Lumsdon v Legal Services Board The President of the Queen’s Bench Division: This is the judgment of the Court, to which we have all contributed. Introduction 1. It is a critical test of the freedom inherent in our democratic society that those accused (usually by the State) of committing criminal offences can and should be represented by capable criminal advocates, independent in spirit who, subject to the rules of law and procedure which operate in our courts and to the dictates of professional propriety, are prepared to put the interests of their clients at the forefront and irrespective of personal disadvantage.
    [Show full text]
  • BACFI QUARTERLY UPDATE: No 8. December 2011 Wishing You A
    BACFI QUARTERLY UPDATE: No 8. December 2011 Wishing you a peaceful Christmas and a successful New Year PROFESSIONAL NEWS The BSB is imposing a new on line process for applications for and renewals of practising certificates, from March 2012, when current certificates expire for employed as well as self-employed barristers. Guidance can be found on the BSB website: http://www.barstandardsboard.org.uk/regulatory-requirements/for- barristers/practising-certificate/authorisation-to-practise/frequently-asked-questions- authorisation-to-practise/ The new rules and changes to the Code of Conduct set out: • Eligibility for employed or self employed practising certificates • the Application process • the different types of certificate • details to be included in the certificate and on the BSB Register • issue, revocation and refusal and the appeal process • changes for those registered under rule 206 of the Code of Conduct, and • changes for those wishing to apply for exemption under 1102 and 1104 of the Code of Conduct. Every practising Barrister will have to set up an online account unless he/she has a disability. The application process includes declarations relating to CPD and insurance. Please note that barristers providing services only to their employer and not to the public will not need individual insurance. Paying the fee alone will not ensure that a barrister is authorised to practice. A renewal notice will be sent in February 2012. We strongly urge you to register as soon as possible and not leave it until the last minute, as the online systems have crashed before! Any member experiencing problems may contact BACFI’s Hon Secretary [email protected].
    [Show full text]
  • Principles and Practice of Legal, Ethical and Professional Responsibility
    Principles and Practice of Legal, Ethical and Professional Responsibility [2016] DAVID C. DAY, Q.C. Lewis, Day St. John’s, NL EXPLANATORY NOTES [1] Each entry in the Detailed Table Of Contents of this annotated anthology—of principles and practices of legal, ethical and professional responsibility—is hyperlinked to the text of that entry included in the anthology. An annotation to the text of an entry, included in the anthology, is identified by “Editor’s Note”. [2] The text of each entry included in the anthology is, in turn—with few exceptions—hyper- linked, by the designation [Full Text], to the full document from which each text was excerpted. In some instances, the full document has been reproduced in the anthology. PROGRAM PRESENTATION Presenting at the 2016 National Family Law Program, based on this anthology, will be Trudi L. Brown, Q.C., Victoria Barrister and Life Bencher of the Law Society of British Columbia, and David C. Day, Q.C., St. John’s Barrister and Master of Newfoundland and Labrador Supreme Court. ACKNOWLEGEMENT Gratefully acknowledged, for transcribing, formatting, and hyperlinking of this annotated anthology; verifying the currency of all judicial decisions, and producing both appendices to Part 1.0 – INTRODUCTION, is Kelly A. Hall, the senior legal assistant of the anthology author and editor for 19 years. David C. Day, Q.C. 01 June 2016 PRINCIPLES AND PRACTICE OF LEGAL, ETHICAL AND PROFESSIONAL RESPONSIBILITY [2016] ______________________________________________________________________________ DAVID C. DAY, Q.C.
    [Show full text]
  • WBL-Professional-Ethics-Pupillage
    Bar Standard Board Centralised Exam Board Professional Ethics Pupillage/Work Based Learning Assessment Syllabus 2020-2021 INTRODUCTION This syllabus has been prepared for the purposes of the Professional Ethics pupillage/WBL assessment for the academic year 2021-22. Successful completion of the assessment aims to: • distinguish between pupils who are ready to receive their Full Practising Certificate; • safeguard the public by ensuring that those who are authorised to practise (by having received their Full Practising Certificates) have fulfilled the ethical requirements set out in the Professional Statement; • ensure a strong, ethical profession. The Professional Ethics pupillage/WBL assessment will be devised with reference to the source materials as set out in this document. Accordingly, with careful study of the materials and sections highlighted herein, students will be able to acquire a comprehensive understanding of the principles that underpin the Professional Statement, enabling them prepare fully for the Professional Ethics pupillage/WBL assessment. NAVIGATION The syllabus is set out in to two parts, A and B. Each part is divided between source materials. Part A relates to subject matter which WILL be examinable and form the basis of assessment questions. When sections of the Handbook are referred to, the material included is all rules and guidance within those sections. Where other documents are referred to, unless otherwise stated, the entirety of that text will be examinable. Where source material refers to additional references within a particular rule or guidance paragraph, unless otherwise indicated, students will not be required to study material beyond the details contained within the rule or guidance paragraph.
    [Show full text]
  • New Handbook and Entity Regulation: Part
    Bar Standards Board Consultation Paper New Handbook and Entity Regulation: Part One March 2012 This consultation will close on Monday 28 May 2012 Page 1 of 58 Table of Contents Executive summary ................................................................................................................................. 5 PART A: Introduction ............................................................................................................................ 11 The risks in the market...................................................................................................................... 12 Outcomes focused regulation ........................................................................................................... 12 Removal of unnecessary restrictions ................................................................................................ 13 PART B: The New Bar Standards Board Handbook ............................................................................... 14 Introduction ...................................................................................................................................... 14 The Code of Conduct: overview ........................................................................................................ 14 Substantive changes since the last consultation .............................................................................. 15 Core Duties ...................................................................................................................................
    [Show full text]