Matthew Hill, Chief Executive of the LSB, recently spoke at the London Law Expo, discussing technology, diversity and inclusion and the rule of law.
Good afternoon. Thank you, Stephen, for that very kind introduction. I’m delighted to be here and honoured to share a platform with Catherine and Jeremy, and of course to be in your hands as chair today Stephen, you bestride the world of legal regulatory thinking like a colossus. It’s particularly good to be here at London Law Expo and to see so many people in person. It’s actually my first time here, Covid having got in the way of previous opportunities.
Anyway, I am Matthew Hill, CEO of the Legal Services Board, which is the statutory oversight regulator for the legal services sector. We oversee the activities of the nine frontline regulators and do our best to ensure that regulation is focused on the objectives set out in legislation, which include (among other things):
- Supporting the constitutional principle of the rule of law
- Improving access to justice
- Ensuring a strong, diverse and effective legal profession
The LSB has been fully operational now for just over 10 years. To mark that milestone last year we published a new strategy for the legal services sector to which we gave the snappy title “Reshaping legal services”. It sets out a vision for closing the gap on unmet legal need, on building public confidence in the legal sector and on underpinning ethics and professionalism in the way that society expects, and indeed depends upon.
The strategy identifies three themes and nine challenges to be met by the sector as a whole. There isn’t really time to do justice to all of them in ten minutes, however concise the LSB’s prose. So I am going to pick on three areas that I think are particularly relevant to the panel discussion on sector leadership in a short while. Those areas are:
- Rule of law
- Technology
- Diversity and inclusion
Rule of law
One of the objectives of the Legal Services Act 2007 – the legislation that creates the framework for legal services regulation – is to support the constitutional principle of the rule of law.
There’s a reason this objective is listed in the Act. It reflects the fundamental role the law and lawyers play in providing the foundation for our civilised society.
The law protects the weak against the strong. It erases violence as a means of resolving disputes. It defines and defends the rights of every one of us.
And that means that being a lawyer is more than just a job. Lawyers hold in their hands the bricks and mortar of our safe and peaceful co-existence. They are entrusted by society with this precious cargo. And that means that however grand or mundane the task in hand, there is a meaning or purpose that transcends the letters on the page.
As a non-lawyer I confess I look at lawyers enviously. It ought to be a source of great pride and joy to be a lawyer and to know that you play this fundamental role on which society depends so profoundly. Speaking as a regulator, I can think of no regulatory tool that is more powerful than simply being proud to be part of a profession and striving to live up to the trust the public places in you.
However…
I think there is a real question for leaders in the sector to grasp and that is the extent to which the vision I outlined currently holds across the sector.
I would posit that recent times have seen the tone of criticism of the sector deteriorate and its volume increase. Much of that I am sure is unjustified.
But a few non-exhaustive examples might serve to illustrate the risk.
- Miscarriages of justice on an industrial scale in the wake of the Post Office Horizon scandal
- Severe criticism of senior lawyers in connection with the near meltdown of the Royal Institute of Chartered Surveyors
- Well publicised weaknesses in anti-money laundering efforts
- A somewhat uncertain response by the sector to sanctions imposed following the war in Ukraine, with only a handful of necessary licences applied for by law firms
- The weaponization of the law by those with deep pockets – for example in relation to so-called SLAPPS
- And arguably its trivialisation – think Wagatha Christie – particularly during a cost of living crisis
Being entirely candid, there is a sense of a ball beginning to roll now on at least some of these issues.
But I don’t think it is too late for sector leadership to grasp the nettle.
The UK legal sector is a global powerhouse. It has an annual turnover of the order of £40bn and rising. It is a, if not the, go to jurisdiction for commercial transactions and dispute resolution. These are all things the country can be rightly proud of.
However, with scale comes risk. If the UK is to maintain and indeed build further its importance as a global jurisdiction of choice, it will need to ensure that its legal sector is leading the world in terms of integrity, confidence and trust.
Technology
Moving to the second of my three areas for today, no discussion on leadership would be complete without thinking about technology. At the LSB we are very much focused on technology as a means of increasing access to legal services, for example by reducing cost, by aggregating supply and matching it to demand, by improving convenience and ease of use and reducing human error.
There are lots of regulatory questions to be posed in relation to these developments, and indeed that are having to be faced across the whole economy. How should AI be regulated? Who is accountable for advice provided by machines? What happens when something goes wrong?
Those questions are all very important, but for today I’m going to ask a question that I personally think even more fundamental and it’s one I don’t hear being asked very often. The question is “what will it mean to be a lawyer in world where most traditional legal work is done by machines”?
The answer I have heard most often in response to this question is, and I am characterising it slightly unfairly I admit, is “train lawyers to code”. While it is no doubt important to think through the implications for training and education I think this a) misses the point and b) does not grasp fully the magnitude of what we are likely to see over the next ten to thirty years as technological development accelerates literally exponentially
So what is the answer to the question? Well I hate to disappoint, but I don’t know for sure and I don’t think anyone really does. But one thing I am sure will need to be part of the picture is the role of the lawyer in building public trust. Maybe this will lead to the lawyer as a trusted navigator or mediator between the public and the algorithm. Someone who is capable of knowing when the answer is wrong and taking the right action to correct it. Someone who understands the importance of public confidence, how slow it is to be established and how quickly it can evaporate.
Diversity and inclusion
And now to my final area of the three, diversity and inclusion.
I have a very simple thesis here. Even in 2022 it is much harder to build a successful career in the law, particularly at senior levels, if you are not white, not a man or come from a less well-off social background. And if you’re disabled you are at an even greater disadvantage.
This feature extends across the whole sector.
I am frequently told, and to some extent I agree, that things have improved at entry level. But despite that, diversity and inclusion erode very fast with seniority. Just look at proportions of black partners at the top UK law firms.
So somehow we have contrived to produce workplaces, practices and business models that comprise and compound a series of barriers to progress. And change is happening too slowly, despite the fact that you will find it hard to find anyone in the sector who does not state diversity and inclusion as a priority.
That’s why there is an increasing appetite to complement leadership solutions with regulatory ones.
The challenge for leadership, in a time of change, is that it may not be possible to be “for” diversity and inclusion without also being “for” quite fundamental change in the way business operates.
I will leave my words there. Thank you.
More stories
