Second supplementary report of the IRLSR published

Lawyers should see themselves as members of a public profession who owe a primary duty to society to secure the public interest ahead of clients’ interests and self-interest, according to the latest report of the IRLSR.

The Review, led by Professor Stephen Mayson (Honorary Professor at UCL Laws), was prompted by the market study carried out by the Competition and Markets Authority in 2016. The main report of the Review was published in 2020, and concluded that the legal sector was not working well for consumers.

The principal recommendation of the IRLSR Report was that the primary objective for the regulation of legal services should be promoting and protecting the public interest.  Given the central importance of the concept of the public interest in the regulatory objectives of the Legal Services Act 2007 and in the recommendations of the IRLSR Report, this new supplementary report revisits and significantly expands earlier work on the meaning of ‘the public interest’ in the regulation of legal services. The implications and implementation of this are explored in much greater depth than before.

The second supplementary report concludes that public interest can be defined as supporting the fabric of society (especially the rule of law and the administration of justice) and the legitimate and equal participation of citizens (including access to justice, and the absence of abusive and arbitrary behaviour); and that lawyers have a duty to prioritise the public interest ahead of clients’ interests and self-interest. Furthermore, even private matters can become public concerns if they violate public interest; and acting in the public interest requires articulation (in public), accessibility (by the public), and accountability (to the public).

In launching the new report, Professor Mayson said:

“The concept of the public interest is pivotal in many ways. First, it encapsulates the essence of a fair society, and the accountability of public institutions for the legitimate participation of citizens in it. Second, it is central to the regulation of legal services by virtue of being a regulatory objective. Third, it offers the foundations of a profession that exists to promote and support it. 

“A fundamental conclusion of this new report is that any claim by lawyers to be a ‘professional’ and part of a ‘profession’ cannot be taken seriously unless and until the members of that group are standing on, and not beneath, the minimum floor that is set by and maintained in the public interest.

“In short, the defence of ‘acting on instructions’ cannot be allowed to stand as a free pass to any lawyers who, having in some way acted contrary to the totality of their professional duties, claim to have fulfilled their duties and acted in the best interests of their clients simply because that is what the clients told them to do.” 

Find out more

• Read the second supplementary report (pdf)
• Independent Review of Legal Services Regulation