Letter from IPReg: you can’t hurry change
Lord Chris Smith explains why areas like CPD don’t lend themselves to easy answers
When I arrived as Chair of IPReg – now, unbelievably, some three years ago – I realised very quickly that one of the things we needed to do in order to become a modern, professional, efficient regulator that attorneys would welcome being regulated by was to undertake a wide-ranging review of our regulatory rules, guidance notes and requirements.
There were too many overlaps and uncertainties, too many rules that had been maintained without anyone really thinking about their impact; too many points where greater clarity was required.
So, we set about undertaking precisely such a review. This has been a main focus of IPReg’s work over the past year and will be so for the year ahead.
We have recently been consulting our registered attorneys – plus, of course, CITMA, CIPA and other representative bodies – to obtain their views, opinions and ideas, as well as responses to our initial proposals.
We will spend the next few months sifting through and analysing all of those thoughts before putting together definitive proposals for further dissemination and then consideration by the Legal Services Board (LSB).
One of the lessons you learn quite rapidly in the field of legal regulation is that you can’t (and shouldn’t) effect change in a hurry. You need to bring everyone with you when making change.
One of the areas we are taking a particularly hard look at – and where there are no easy answers – is the question of continuing professional development (CPD). CPD is an essential mechanism for keeping attorneys up to speed with current issues, decisions and challenges.
It’s particularly important if someone has taken a period of time away from day-to-day work in the profession. But how do we ensure that CPD gets done in a meaningful, engaging way that will have real impact, and not turn into a box-ticking exercise?
How might we, for example, introduce an element of peer review into the CPD accreditation process? Perhaps a record of casework which could truly reflect the extent and nature of the work undertaken.
Other ideas, I’m sure, will emerge, but we are very keen to hear from a wide range of people about how we might think about improving the rules.
The LSB is also keen to encourage thinking about how CPD regulation can be improved. If we can get it right for the IP sector – or at least get it working better – that might be more widely applicable too.
CPD isn’t the only area we are turning our attention to, of course, but it’s one of the most important. What I’m fervently hoping will emerge from the whole review is a set of rules and procedures that are clear, fit for purpose and which command wide support. Not a bad goal to aim for, I think.
The Rt Hon the Lord Smith of Finsbury
Chair of IPReg
Back to the landing page
