The Scottish legal system is in the centre of much tumultuous change. An era of globalisation and the advance of artificial intelligence across the West makes it difficult to defend the centuries old independence of Scots Law and even the traditional role of the Scottish solicitor. Many of their proposals though seem out of time.
The frustration of the Law Society of Scotland in their submission to the Scottish Government’s review of legal regulation is palpable and to an extent justified. Large international law firms with no organic link to Scotland have set up here in the last few years. Mainly based in England, the Law Society has no jurisdiction over them. Yet calling for legislation to allow the Law Society power to regulate cross border firms seems to be wishful thinking, and probably beyond the Scottish Parliament’s powers, as there are strict geographical limits over where Scottish legislation can apply.
Trying to police the use of the word “lawyer” again seems unfeasible. In truth, lawyer has always been a generic description of people working within the legal system with no more meaning than that. The more specific jobs of solicitor, advocate or even judge are regulated and cannot be used in an ad hoc fashion.
The control of language in this way is also borne of frustration as many companies now claim to proffer “legal advice” without employing solicitors qualified in Scots Law. It is doubtful whether or not allowing them to call themselves “lawyers” would prevent this phenomenon.
One of the drivers in April 2017 for this review were rumblings around the complaints system against Scottish legal professionals. For members of the public, the system was labyrinthine. For solicitors and advocates, the 12.5% increase in fees by the Scottish Legal Complaints Commission (SLCC) announced last year was a step too far.
The SLCC was actually created in 2008 as new approach to legal regulation. It replaced the Scottish Legal Services Ombudsman which was viewed as remote from the public and too close to the profession. A return to such a model would be unthinkable.
Dr Nick McKerrell is a lecturer in law at Glasgow Caledonian University
Why are you making commenting on The Herald only available to subscribers?
It should have been a safe space for informed debate, somewhere for readers to discuss issues around the biggest stories of the day, but all too often the below the line comments on most websites have become bogged down by off-topic discussions and abuse.
heraldscotland.com is tackling this problem by allowing only subscribers to comment.
We are doing this to improve the experience for our loyal readers and we believe it will reduce the ability of trolls and troublemakers, who occasionally find their way onto our site, to abuse our journalists and readers. We also hope it will help the comments section fulfil its promise as a part of Scotland's conversation with itself.
We are lucky at The Herald. We are read by an informed, educated readership who can add their knowledge and insights to our stories.
That is invaluable.
We are making the subscriber-only change to support our valued readers, who tell us they don't want the site cluttered up with irrelevant comments, untruths and abuse.
In the past, the journalist’s job was to collect and distribute information to the audience. Technology means that readers can shape a discussion. We look forward to hearing from you on heraldscotland.com
Comments & Moderation
Readers’ comments: You are personally liable for the content of any comments you upload to this website, so please act responsibly. We do not pre-moderate or monitor readers’ comments appearing on our websites, but we do post-moderate in response to complaints we receive or otherwise when a potential problem comes to our attention. You can make a complaint by using the ‘report this post’ link . We may then apply our discretion under the user terms to amend or delete comments.
Post moderation is undertaken full-time 9am-6pm on weekdays, and on a part-time basis outwith those hours.
Read the rules here