DOCSLIB.ORG

Future Bar Training Consultation on The

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read 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. The responses were received from the following: six from individual barristers; 10 from Law Professors or Lecturers; 14 from University Law Schools; 11 from legal representative organisations; seven from other organisations; two from Chambers; one from another regulator; and seven from individuals who did not specify their occupations. Summary of key findings Part 1 Part 1 of the consultation concerned the Academic stage. It considered: the way in which the academic stage may or may not contribute to the achievement of the Professional Statement requirements; the topic of degree classification and whether to move towards requiring a minimum 2:1; a possible move away from the “eight core subjects” requirement; how we could make sure that those completing the academic stage have sufficient legal knowledge and understanding to start the next stage of training. BSB 280116 Annex 1 to BSB Paper 002 (16) Part 1 – Public Demonstrating abilities The majority of respondents were supportive of the BSB permitting alternative means of demonstrating the necessary abilities to become a barrister, other than through the completion of a law degree or GDL. Respondents suggested that to have no other route into the profession would risk undermining the diversity of the Bar and homogenising the pool from which future barristers are drawn. However, some respondents did express a strong attachment to the concept of “graduateness”. These respondents were of the view that removing the requirement to have a degree would result in a downgrading in professional standards, and would diminish public confidence in the profession. It was also noted that because other professions of equal standing in the public confidence, such as doctors, architects and veterinarians, require a degree, it would be important for the Bar to continue to do so also. Degree classification There was much opposition to the idea of raising the required degree classification from 2:2 to 2:1. This was largely due to concerns about reducing diversity at the Bar, and the perceived inconsistencies between the standards of different universities. A particular concern for a number of respondents was that the requirement of an upper second class degree may unduly restrict access to the profession and have a disproportionate impact on students from disadvantaged backgrounds. As the Bar has an important role in promoting the interests of, and access to, justice, it was seen as vital that the composition of the Bar should be as representative as possible of the community it serves. Many respondents cautioned the BSB against making any changes to the requirements for degree classification without gathering and assessing evidence to ensure that students from particular universities, or personal circumstances would not be unfairly penalised. Core subjects Many respondents supported the continuation of the specification of core subjects. The core subjects were regarded by many as the foundation of the law of the land. There was concern that if the core subjects to be studied were not prescribed by the BSB, the “equality of content” that a Qualifying Law Degree provides would be lost. This could lead to a lack of consistency and rigour in the scope and level of legal knowledge obtained by future barristers, and therefore a degradation of the high standards of the Bar. Compatibility A significant number of respondents expressed a concern that any consideration of what should be required from a law degree would need to be considered in light of the SRA’s approach to training of solicitors. Respondents felt that that the two branches of the legal profession appear to be diverging from the Joint Statement approach and that there may no longer be a consistent approach to the academic stage by the two regulators. There was concern that law schools may not be able to provide different routes through an LLB that would satisfy both regulators and that it would be unfair for students starting out to have to decide from the beginning which route they would want to take. There was also concern expressed, particularly by university law schools, that the more complex the BSB approach, and the more it diverges from the statement of legal knowledge in the SRA’s competence statement, the more problematic it will be for Law Schools to design programmes which comply with both regulators’ demands. BSB 280116 Annex 1 to BSB Paper 002 (16) Part 1 – Public Part 2 Part 2 of the consultation concerned the vocational stage, and sought endorsement of the proposition that such a stage of training should not be abandoned. It considered: the strengths of the current vocational stage; the perceived and actual issues of the current vocational stage; the role of the regulator in the vocational stage of training; possible future approaches to how we regulate this stage. Retaining vocational requirements All respondents agreed that some form of vocational stage was necessary in the training of future barristers, though not all thought it should remain in its current form. There was suggestion from some respondents that this stage could be more integrated with both the academic and professional stages. Bar Course Aptitude Test (BCAT) Many respondents raised issues with the BCAT, which was seen by a significant number of respondents as not being fit for purpose and lacking credibility. Many respondents suggested that if it was to remain, it would need redesigning to ensure it could function as an effective filter for those going on to further study in the vocational stage. The Bar Professional Training Course (BPTC) Responses relating to the value of the current BPTC were mixed, with some respondents feeling it operated well and gave students the foundation they needed to proceed to pupillage, and others expressing dissatisfaction with the way the BPTC currently operates and the costs involved for students in undertaking it. Respondents were generally glad that the issue of cost and affordability of the BPTC was being recognised. It was agreed that the cost of legal education is a serious issue to the extent that it may deter good candidates from less privileged backgrounds from pursuing a career at the Bar. There was disagreement on whether the BPTC represented value for money. While many respondents thought the BPTC was prohibitively expensive and could be deterring students from considering a career at the Bar, not all respondents thought it did not offer value for money. It was noted that the BPTC is made from intensive ‘people-led’ training, and some respondents thought it would be difficult for this to be made cheaper without compromising on quality or increasing cohort sizes. A number of respondents commented that the BSB should be focusing on outcomes in relation to the BPTC, and therefore lessening how prescriptive the BSB should be in its requirements. However, concern was also raised that without some level of prescription, there may be a “race to the bottom” and that high standards need to continue to be encouraged. As well as being outcomes-focussed, there was some support for the BSB considering a model that would be innovative, able to respond quickly to change, and offer quality assurance and choice for students. A number of respondents rejected the idea that the BPTC qualification is not widely recognised, and that the skills learned on the BPTC do not have ‘wider recognition’. This was seen as ignoring the presentational and analytical skills that are learned on the course, and that are highly valued by employers outside of the Bar. There was a question raised of BSB 280116 Annex 1 to BSB Paper 002 (16) Part 1 – Public whether it needed to be an aim of the BPTC to provide “wider value” considering the aim of the course is to prepare students for a career at the Bar. There was also suggestion that widening the BPTC from its current purpose could make it longer and more expensive. BPTC “Approach 1” A number of respondents believe that the BPTC as it currently stands is as an educationally sound programme which is fit for purpose and provides good preparation for pupillage. There was therefore some support for maintaining something similar to the status quo, with the continuous improvement approach (Approach 1) outlined in the consultation.
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]
  • 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]
  • 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.
    [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]