In March 2021, the Legal Services Board (LSB) published a strategy to reshape legal services. Since then, we’ve developed the reshaping legal services podcast series to document progress across the sector against the strategy’s challenges and identify ways for stakeholders to collaborate and deliver on reshaping legal services to better meet society’s needs.
In this episode, Dr Helen Phillips, Chair of the LSB, shares her reflections as she prepares to step down from the role at the end of her term of office.
Transcript
SPEAKERS
Helen Phillips, Suganya Suriyakumaran
Suganya Suriyakumaran
Welcome to the reshaping legal services podcast hosted by the Legal Services Board.
My name is Suganya and I’m a regulatory policy manager here at the LSB. I’ll be presenting this series while Tania Hardcastle is away on parental leave.
In March 2021, the Legal Services Board published its 10 year sector wide strategy to reshape legal services and since publishing the strategy, we’ve developed the reshaping legal services podcast series to document progress across the sector against the strategy’s challenges , and identify ways for stakeholders to collaborate and deliver on reshaping legal services to better meet society’s needs.
For this episode, I am joined by Dr. Helen Phillips, Chair at the LSB.
Helen has been at the LSB for almost 8 years, joining the LSB as a lay member in 2015 and then being appointed chair in 2018.
She also currently chairs the Boards of the Chartered Insurance Institute and Chesterfield Royal Hospital NHS Foundation Trust.
Today Helen will be sharing with us her reflections on progress in legal services regulation as outgoing Chair at the LSB
Hi, Helen, how are you?
Helen Phillips
Hello, afternoon, are you? Well?
Suganya Suriyakumaran
Yes, I’m very well. So we’re just hoping to speak to you a little bit today about your reflections as chair. And maybe we can start with helping the listeners get a better sense of kind of who you are and how you got to the LSB. So wondering if you can share a few words about your journey to the LSB. And what made you kind of want to become chair?
Helen Phillips
Well, the importance of the mission of the LSB. I mean, we do very important work don’t we about protecting consumers interests, and advancing consumers interests and protecting the public interest. But needing to do that, at the same time as recognizing you have to work hand in glove with an ancient and esteemed profession, that itself has that very same objective. So finding a way to do that working in concert, I reckoned would be a pretty sophisticated regulatory challenge. So that’s really what attracted me to it. And of course, and I must say, in my reflections on leaving, you know, some very fine chairs that went before me. And when I initially joined the board, so Michael Pitt was chair, and he left me a very fine legacy. So, you know, having then had the tenure I’ve had, it’s been quite satisfying to have seen a number of the things that were glints in our eye, on my arrival come to fruition.
Suganya Suriyakumaran
Well, that’s a perfect segue into another question of what has been achieved during your time as chair here that you’re quite proud of, and that you’ve continued on the legacy, as you said, of the previous chairs.
Helen Phillips
A first want to point out probably might seem a bit boring, because I would point to the improvements in our kind of our core regulatory function, I always think it’s very important, isn’t it that you kind of get the basics and the knitting right, in order to have the right foundation to take on kind of more lofty ambitions or goals. And also, I’ve alluded to the fact that as an oversight regulator, there’s a particular sort of challenge. And I think we have become more proportionate, more modern, more risk based. And recognizing that this is a sector that wants to invest in specialist regulation. We don’t want one size to fit all, because that is one of the advantages of specialist regulation, that it can be more tailored. But of course, as the oversight regulator, we need to make sure that the outcomes are the same in terms of the consumer interest or the public interest. And I think the approach to kind of our knitting or our core regulatory functions has evolved in such a way that it is demanding in terms of the outcomes we want to achieve in a consistent way, but very permissive in how it is regulators go about doing that. And I think it’s also put much more onus an obligation on the boards or the frontline regulators, to make sure that their organizations are well led. That that was not a concept we had embraced on my arrival here. And it’s really important if you’re to be proportionate, that you can rely on the assurances that those frontline regulators are themselves relying upon. But we’ve needed to codify that in a particular way. And of course, and this year’s round of regulatory assessments, you know, we’re kind of halfway there, and we’ll be doing it in its totality, next time around. But I think that’s given us a much clearer picture. And more importantly, given frontline regulators a much clearer picture of what it is they’re good at, and what it is they you know, need to do more work with respect to assuring the public and the profession that, you know, they’re discharging their obligations fully and thoroughly. So I think that has been a very, very important development along with and, you know, you’ll know when I tell you this, that I am indeed a regulatory anorak. But having evolved that framework to regulation, I think we’ve got much savvier at using it in concert with other regulatory levers. So you know, when regulations come to us for change in the rulebook, or where they submit their PCF application, we don’t go, oh, it’s Monday. It’s a new day. It’s the PCF, we think about in the context of the most recent performance assessment, you know, what is the adequacy of the PCF in terms of meeting the requirements that this regulator has at this particular moment in this particular context, and, and likewise, with changes to the rulebook, I also think the sourcebook that’s come out with the regulatory and the new approach to regulatory assessments will also be great. Well, a great source book. In terms of somewhere to go and look and get ideas that hopefully are not prescriptive, but make it perfectly clear what an option to compliance is, and brings to light what are acceptable regulatory minima look like? So I should probably pause for breath there really. But there are other things I could certainly highlight in terms of, you know, what that solid foundation has in turn enabled us to do in terms of competence, or consumer empowerment, or a whole range of other things.
Suganya Suriyakumaran
And just to maybe make it a little bit more accessible for those not familiar with regulation, when you say that base foundation, we’re talking about regulators, abilities to appropriately and adequately regulate their professions in a way that protects our consumers. Correct?.
Helen Phillips
Absolutely
Suganya Suriyakumaran
So what impact will the regulatory changes and updates and policy work that we’re doing here at the LSB have on the real lives or the direct impact that it will have on consumers? Can you share a little bit about that?
Helen Phillips
And I think the work we’ve done on consumer empowerment is really important in that regard. So that those who need legal services or think they might need legal services can shop around in a way that they understand whether or not they kind of want an end to end solution or whether they want an unbundled solution. And what the likely cost or an indicative cost of that is going to be that they can compare that in a kind of, you know, like, for like way or have at least more of a sense of that, and also being able to make some judgments about quality themselves, or at least having confidence that being accessing services of a regulated or regulated provider, that there are inbuilt assurances about the quality of that work, and indeed, access to redress in the small number of occasions where it goes wrong. And it’s, you know, it’s easy, isn’t it for a consumer to think well, did I get a nice cup of coffee and was the cup thick, and you know, did the letter come on, nice quality paper or whatever. But by understanding the technical competence is not something you know, that the average consumer is in a good position to do. And we’ve had CPD continuous professional development in the profession for a very long time. But I think that is a slightly different thing, to ensuring ongoing competence, you know, it continuous professional development is kind of like a gift to yourself, and the regulator can make sure that you’re, you know, regularly giving yourself gifts, but it’s not quite the same as an assessment about competence. And I think, you know, if we accept the consumers are not well placed to make that judgment by quality, they deserve to have that assurance about competence. And I have been, you know, when we started out on this journey, there was quite a bit of hurumphing. And I have been, you know, really delighted to see what has come back in terms of the, the way in which the concept has been embraced, and, and the innovation and, and thoughtfulness with which proposals have come back as to how this is going to be put in place and evolved.
Suganya Suriyakumaran
Perfect. So that’s what we’ve done so far, I’d also love to hear your thoughts on what you think we still need to do at the LSB. And more generally, in the legal services sector to help further the areas of work that we’ve identified through our reshaping legal services strategy?
Helen Phillips
Well, you know, the legal needs survey tells us that there is quite a lot of improvement in terms of access to justice at meeting unmet legal need. But it also tells us that the best part of 30% of individuals have some unmet legal need on a contentious issue. So we know there’s a very long way to go in terms of meeting legal need. And I think that’s tied up with a number of things, isn’t it, it’s tied up with transparency. And it’s tied up with consumer empowerment to consumers being able to compare quality and price if they’re in the position to shop. And even if they’re not in the position to shop, there are a lot of people who don’t get legal need when they could do with legal need because they have a concern or an anxiety, that its going to be much more expensive than it is. So that would empower a greater number of consumers before we get to those for whom it is we need to do something different because they genuinely don’t have the ability for whatever reason to to access that. So I think that whole issue about unmet met legal need is very, very tied up with the whole consumer empowerment and transparency piece that we have worked so hard, and need to do even more on the other thing that it’s tied to, in my mind, and we don’t necessarily draw the dots in this regard, all the time but it’s very much related to equality, diversity and inclusion. And I suppose, you know, going back to looking forward and and reflecting I, as chair, have one regret, which is I preside over the issuing of two sets of guidance on improving diversity in the profession. Bless me, in my naivety thinking that enlightened self interest would prevail, and everybody would know that diversity was a good thing. Well, I think, rather misjudged that with the benefit of hindsight. So as you well know, now we have that kind of enshrined in the heart of our regulatory performance assessment, that whole bit about what progress we’re making, and particularly in terms of career progression, because we’ve got much better in terms of the whole, you know, equality of the professionals on entry, but it falls off a cliff, you know, on promotional and on progression. But I’m also very proud of and have high expectations of the work, we’ve done on counter-inclusive practices, and statement we’ve done and the way in which we’ve done that by collaborating across the sector, as opposed to using any regulatory lever, because I think there’s far too much hope placed on attracting and retaining talent, yeah, with not the necessary attention on inclusive workplaces. You know, you can attract people but they’re not going to stay long if you don’t have an inclusive workplace. And I think that whole piece, we’re doing about counter inclusive practices and what real good practice looks like is really important. And the third dot I’d kind of join is that whole piece will be the one on technology and innovation. We spent a long time at the LSB along with everyone else scratching our heads about what all this meant. What was the role of AI? And what were the ethical considerations did you need to regulate, dra, dra? Well, I think, you know, our most recent utterances, and those that are to come are much more practical, about technology in the context of lowering cost, improving choice, increasing access. So, you know, good progress, but again, plenty more to do and I should be looking with interest from the sidelines.
Suganya Suriyakumaran
Okay, so those are three key areas that we’ll likely continue to work on over the overarching umbrella of improving access to justice, I think that leaves us in a good spot to maybe end with a question of how we can continue building momentum over the next few years. I think you mentioned in in response to the first question, that the way we’ve been modifying the way we’ve worked with front, line regulators, and perhaps some other folks in the sector has enhanced the regulation and regulatory framework that governs those in the legal sector, but would be curious to hear if there are other ways in which we could help build momentum, and you continue going on that the way we are?
Helen Phillips
Yeah, great question. I think that was exemplified in the approach, we took to refreshing the strategy for the LSB. So when the strategy kind of ran out, and it was time to refresh it, we thought that, you know, being the best part of 10 years old, frankly, we weren’t going to have the impact we needed to have unless we were playing our part in the context of everybody else playing their part. Because these outcomes we’re talking about are big outcomes that require profound change, you know, in society, by consumers and by the profession. And when we went out, and the first thing we did was produced the State of the Nation report. So we could really understand, you know, the legal services sector as it was, at that point in time, 10 years after the legislation. And on the back of that, and having really evidenced the scale of the change that’s required, we went out and said, to those we worked most closely with, you know, is it the right time to have a strategy for the sector. And the response to that was an overwhelming yes. Because really, we do need to amplify, rather than duplicate each other’s efforts. And we do need to make sure that our efforts are, are targeted at the most profound changes that are required. And I mean, if you go to our microsite, and you look at the lovely examples there, of what it is not the LSB is managed to do. But the LSB is curating, and supporting and facilitating, and I hope being a very good ally, to those who are making a real difference. I think that, that in terms of a way of working has also been a profound shift, and one that inevitably more of will be required into the future.
Suganya Suriyakumaran
Thank you for that. thank you for coming on the podcast and sharing your reflections as you’re leaving. I’m sure you’ll be on to more exciting things to come. Thank you for your contributions to this episode, as well as to the LSB.
Helen Phillips
Thank you. It’s been a pleasure.