One of the most pressing challenges facing the legal sector is unmet legal need. Too many people in England and Wales do not get the help they need when faced with a legal problem, particularly if they are on a low income or in a vulnerable situation. Our 2024 Individual Legal Needs Survey shows that almost a third (32%) of people involved in a legal dispute did not adequately resolve their issue.
There is a regulatory objective to improve access to justice, and the Legal Services Board (LSB) is exploring how regulation may contribute to ensuring that everyone who needs legal services can access them. As part of our work to understand the challenge and identify solutions, we were delighted to welcome Olive Craig, Senior Legal Officer at Rights of Women, to share insights and experiences with the Board.
Powerful testimony from Rights of Women
Rights of Women is the only charity dedicated to providing free, confidential, frontline legal advice to those experiencing violence against women and girls across England and Wales. It also campaigns for access to justice and safety for all women.
Olive shared case studies that illustrated the challenges women in vulnerable situations can face when needing legal advice. We heard how many people find it difficult to know where to go for legal support. The Board noted that Legal Choices, with its role in signposting people to the help they need, is a crucial resource. Despite an increase in the number of visitors to the Legal Choices website in recent years, further awareness raising is needed to ensure more people can benefit from it.
Our conversation about access to justice led to a sobering discussion about professional ethics and lawyers’ conduct. The Board was disheartened to hear about cases where a power imbalance existed between litigants in person and claimants with privately funded lawyers. We were deeply concerned about the aggressive litigation tactics that some unrepresented women faced, including delaying tactics, unqualified ‘professional experts’ who disregard their professional duties, and ‘creative compliance’ with the law.
The stories illustrated how lawyers’ conduct can undermine their commitment to the rule of law. The report we commissioned from Professor Richard Moorhead and Professor Steven Vaughan outlines similar examples.
The LSB and the regulators we oversee have a legal duty to support the constitutional principle of the rule of law, promote the public interest, and promote and maintain adherence to professional principles. Olive Craig has further highlighted the impact on individual lives when lawyers behave unethically. We are committed to ensuring regulation supports ethical decision-making and that any weaknesses in the regulatory framework are addressed.
We will continue to work to ensure that regulation supports workplace cultures in which lawyers are able to act with independence, integrity and honesty, regardless of their client or area of law. This is vital to building public trust and confidence.
Access to Justice: focusing where the need is most urgent
Olive’s testimony provided a fitting background to our discussion on access to justice and where we at LSB should focus our resources and efforts. We recognised that several organisations are working to improve access to justice and that the remit is broad. So, we agreed that we must prioritise action where the need is urgent and where we are best placed to act.
While unmet legal need exists across society, following a review of research and evidence, we concluded that our work on exploring the role of regulation in improving access to justice would focus on those with low incomes or facing systemic barriers who rely on free or low-cost legal advice. This is where the need is most pronounced.
We are examining how regulation may be able to contribute to this aim, as well as providing technical support on a wider range of actions that others may be leading. We are also keen to work collaboratively across the sector with those working towards the same aim to ensure our approach is complementary.
Economic Crime Regulation Objective
Following the introduction in October 2023 of a new regulatory objective – ’promoting the prevention and detection of economic crime’ – we have been considering how best to ensure regulators fulfil their new obligations. We want to make sure they act in a way that is compatible with the objective.
We have worked with regulators and other stakeholders to draft guidance on how we expect regulators to demonstrate they promote the prevention and detection of economic crime. The Board discussed and approved the draft guidance, subject to some minor amendments, which will be issued for public consultation following the summer.
Office for legal complaints – budget acceptance criteria
Part of our statutory role is to approve the annual budget of the Office for Legal Complaints (OLC). The OLC is the Board of the Legal Ombudsman (LeO). We access the OLC’s budget request by assessing it against our budget acceptance criteria.
The Board discussed the draft criteria the OLC must adhere to in its upcoming budget application for 2025/26. While LeO’s performance in terms of queue length and wait time has improved significantly in recent years, there remains room for further improvement. Updates to the draft criteria were discussed and agreed upon. This will allow the OLC to set out their plans in more strategic terms, with a focus on measurability and transparency.
Our next Board meeting is on 17 September in Bristol. We will also host an event for stakeholders in the West Country and we look forward to meeting a wide range of people in the region with a role to play in reshaping legal services to better meet the needs of society.