On the 6th of March, I was delighted to attend the Reshaping Legal Services Conference, organised by the Legal Services Board and the Legal Services Consumer Panel. As an independent body overseeing the regulation of lawyers in England and Wales, the LSB plays a crucial role in shaping the legal landscape and this conference provided a space to discuss key issues in the sector.
The event was structured around three key themes: access to justice, improving public trust and confidence, and equality, diversity and inclusion (EDI).
The first part of the conference tackled the role of regulators in improving access to justice. A recent LSB report highlighted the increasing levels of both unmet and unrecognised legal need. The first keynote speaker was Dr Liz Curran, whose research delved into how regulators can bridge the gap in legal access. What particularly stood out was her distinction between legal aid and access to justice—two terms that are often used interchangeably. Liz argued that by separating these concepts, we can begin to explore alternative pathways for individuals to obtain legal advice beyond traditional legal aid.
However, this also raised concerns for me. If regulators struggle to fulfil their duty to improve access to justice, how can we be sure that they will drive meaningful change? Studying ‘Law and Government’ in my final year at the University of Bristol has made me aware of the shortcomings of regulators in various sectors. Often, despite their statutory obligations, regulators fail to deliver real-world outcomes, and the legal sector is no exception.
However, Liz’s emphasis on cross-sector collaboration was encouraging. The next panel built on this idea, showcasing successful examples of collaborative initiatives.
One of the standout speakers in this discussion was Emma Bates, Director of Positive Action on Poverty at the Central England Law Centre. She highlighted how a partnership with Coventry City Council, which enabled early intervention for individuals at risk, prevented legal issues from escalating. Having volunteered at the Bristol Law Centre, I’ve seen first-hand how those facing the greatest inequalities also struggle the most to access legal support; Emma’s insights reinforced how targeted, community-based approaches can make a real difference.
Another fascinating perspective came from Dan Hopewell, Director of Knowledge and Innovation at Bromley by Bow Insights Regulator. He proposed that access to social welfare legal advice should be considered a social determinant of health inequality—a powerful concept that underlines the far-reaching consequences of legal exclusion. If we start viewing legal advice as essential to public health, perhaps policymakers and regulators will prioritise it accordingly.
The second key theme of the conference focused on public trust and confidence in the legal profession. This was particularly relevant in light of recent high-profile cases, such as Dan Neidle’s investigative work at Tax Policy Associates into Nadhim Zahawi. Dan’s work exposed how the law can be used to intimidate and silence potential challengers, raising fundamental ethical concerns about legal practice.
One of the most engaging debates of the day was the contrast between Dan Neidle’s view—that the law itself facilitates misconduct—and Lloyd Hatton MP’s position that the responsibility lies with individual lawyers who choose to exploit the system. This discussion resonated with me because it raises the question of whether regulation should focus on systemic reform or personal accountability. Additionally, it was enlightening to hear insights from regulators in other sectors, who shared strategies for raising ethical standards, and where the legal regulators could learn from these examples.
The final panel, chaired by Patrick McCann, addressed the role of regulation in fostering a fair, healthy, and inclusive legal profession. While progress has certainly been made in terms of EDI, the discussions made it clear just how much work still lies ahead.
What struck me most was the need to shift the focus from getting into the profession to getting on within it. While entry-level diversity has improved, disparities persist at the senior levels. Dr Natasha Shotunde, Barrister at Garden Court Chambers, made a particularly memorable statement, describing many current EDI measures as mere “sticking plasters”—short-term fixes rather than systemic solutions.
The Reshaping Legal Services Conference was a thought-provoking event that developing my perspectives on legal regulation. While it was encouraging to hear about innovative solutions, it also reinforced the significant hurdles that remain. Regulation alone cannot solve the legal profession’s deep-rooted issues, but it can certainly play a more proactive role.
More stories
