Entity regulation, litigation rights and the changing meaning of professionalism at the Bar of England and Wales

Abstract

Standards Board Handbook, which was first released in January 2014. This included changes allowing for barristers to engage in litigation and enabling the Bar Standards Board to regulate entities rather than just individual barristers. This article places these changes within the existing theoretical understanding of the legal professions and professionalism, and argues that they open the door for a significant shift in the way that the discourse of professionalism is used in relation to the Bar.The Bar Standards Board (BSB) released its new format of the Handbook in January 2014.This was a substantial rewriting of the rules and principles governing the Bar. A major impetus for those changes appears to be the need to comply with the recommendations of the Clementi Report and to implement a substantial new regime for regulating Alternative Business Structures. The Handbook has provided an opportunity for the BSB to significantly alter the way the profession is both defined and governed. These alterations include an increased regulation of unregistered barristers, 1 the option for litigation rights (rights to prepare cases for filing, usually the preserve of solicitors), a duty to report the misconduct of other barristers, changes to responsibility for chambers management, and outcomes focused and risk-based regulation. 2 This article will look at the rules, guidance and consultations relating to two of these changes: entity regulation and litigation rights, in order to argue that the changes are 1 Marc Mason, 'UK: Room at the Inns -The Increased Scope of Regulation under the new Bar Standards Board Handbook for England and Wales' (2014) 17(1) Legal Ethics 143 2 Marc Mason, 'Making Way for Change at the Bar: The Practical Implications of the new Bar

The State of Business Rescue Practitioners Professional Accreditation

“…Members of professional bodies eligible for BRP licensing (Table 1) by the CIPC are expected to show professionalism. The notion of professionalism has evolved over the years, and its meaning lacks consensus (Joo, 2020; Mason, 2020). Ro (2020) and Hanlon (1998) consider professionalism to be a shifting phenomenon reflecting the changed circumstances.…”

“…Deliberations about professional characteristics, supremacy, control, and labor market closure strategies debated in the literature do not directly address the BRP learning, development, and licensing. Most scholars underscore professionals’ self-interests, supremacy, and control (Abbot, 1988; Evetts, 2014; Freidson, 1994; Johnson, 1972; Larson & Larson, 1979; Larson, 1990; Macdonald, 1995; Mason, 2020; Parkin, 1998; Vollmer & Mills, 1966). The conceptualization of professionalism as a specialized expertise ignores the behavioral dimensions of professionalism resulting from professional work’s altered setting (Aven & Alm Andreassen, 2020).…”

“…Suyono and Farooque (2019) consider professionalism as an ethical of occupation because practitioners are expected to comply with the ethical code of conduct. Brint (2015) and Mason (2020) distinguishes professionalism based on specialized expertise from professionalism, focusing on expert knowledge to serve goals defined by the labor marketplace. Birkett and Evans (2005) state that “Professionalisation refers to the path taken by occupational associations to attain professionalism” (p. 102).…”