Legal regulators are not doing enough to open up the flexible pathways into a legal career that are needed to improve diversity in the sector, said the Chartered Institute of Legal Executives (CILEX) in its response to the Legal Services Board’s (LSB) consultation on its draft policy statement on encouraging a diverse legal profession.
In its consultation response, the membership body said it felt “such flexibility is often not in great evidence… and regulators need to display greater agility to respond to sector issues sooner if demand outstripping supply is to be meaningfully met.” It added regulators should also be free to develop their own expectations, taking into account their own specialist knowledge and understanding of their regulated communities to effect change. Greater expectations and incentives could be introduced to encourage new pathways to entry and qualification.
CILEX President Sara Fowler said:
“Everyone recognises the importance of the legal sector representing the society it serves and making a legal career accessible to all. While measures such as data collection are important, we need to focus on practical improvements that use existing evidence and good practice to make real change.
“The expectation should be on regulators to consider how they can proactively open up new routes into the profession or make existing routes more flexible without compromising on standards. This is particularly important in areas of high unmet legal need where more practitioners are required to service demand.”
Describing the legal sector as “conservative” the body warned it takes times to instigate the cultural changes to the legal workplace required. Many of the barriers to entry are “rooted in broader societal issues” suggested CILEX, and raised concerns about the difficulties experienced by the UK arms of US law firms, saying they should be dealt with “sensitively” given the current US administration’s antipathy towards diversity and inclusion initiatives.
The LSB could also be more supportive of qualification initiatives across the profession with CILEX critical of what is described as “little active support” for its own efforts to improve diversity in key areas of legal practice. In particular the body said it felt its efforts to “open up judicial appointments to those members who met the required levels of qualification and competence,” had been stifled; and pointed to evidence submitted of the equivalence of CILEX members’ qualifications and competence when it came to criminal legal aid which was met with little support, a “furrow” the membership “ploughed alone”.
Concluding, CILEX said it wanted to see “consistent regulatory standards across all areas of the profession for authorised persons returning to the law or moving between sectors.” warning without it, there is a danger of a “race to the bottom” which would see such practitioners “simply gravitate to the lowest achievable standard”, undermining consumer protection and public confidence.
