Introduction

Following our requirements under legislation, and in keeping with good administrative practice, we continually review our framework on CPD. We have been analysing a range of options around CPD principles for the last 3-4 years, with the aim of consulting on our ideas around this period and believe this is a suitable moment to consider changes.

We propose to deliver these via new CPD Principles. Two of the most significant recommendations are: proposals to change individual licences; and a universal CPD requirement for CLC firms operated at Practice level.

The new CPD Principles

During recent discussion we concluded that changing the existing framework was necessary to mitigate risks that the CLC sees in the delivery of legal services, to continue to improve standards in the profession, and protect consumers and to meet the LSB’s expectations.

Following a workshop focused on CPD, and a supporting dialogue around this workstream, the CLC has analysed its priorities for a revised CPD approach. Our intention is that these would keep its existing strengths and reduce risks. Our aims have been summarised into the set of principles set out below.

1.       Introduce more meaningful risk/competency direction and increase the levels of mandatory evidence and reporting requirements for individual licence holders, to enable us to assess profession-wide levels of competence (and identify individual legal professionals that are failing to meet the standards of competence identified).

2.       Provide quantitative and qualitative data that will help us to assess profession-wide levels of competence, understand the competence of individual non-legally qualified professionals with key accountabilities within practices, and identify practices that are failing to meet the standards of competence identified.

3.       Help practices align their organisational wide training and development and risk management processes into a coherent on-going compliance and competence strategy that will help protect consumers and reduce the regulatory burden.

4.       Introduce a mandatory practice-level responsibility for ongoing competence, to improve the overall risk management and performance of CLC practices.

The new CPD Framework

Application

It is proposed that this revised approach will:

a.       move away from an hours-based approach and move towards an activity and outcomes based approach;

b.       include a fix mix of externally assessed and informally assessed activity;

c.       introduce a regulated entity responsibility for ongoing competence, to improve the overall risk management and performance of CLC practices, which will apply to:


·       Individual CLC Licence Holders

·       Heads of Legal Practice

·       Heads of Finance and Administration

·       Money Laundering Reporting Officers

·       Complaints Handling leads (these are described differently in different practices)

·       Directors/Partners/Members/Sole Practitioners.


The expectations relating each of the groups above will be:


·       Tailored to the needs of their roles, and moderated when one individual holds multiple roles;

·       Their duties as defined in regulation; and

·       Their responsibilities for the supervision of th

Question Title

* 1. We have suggested a range of typical key personnel appointments that hold particular service or compliance responsibilities within CLC regulated entities; do you think that the range of key personnel identified is:

Requirements

There will be elements of CPD activity that are mandated by the CLC each year for each group listed above. Other elements will be chosen by the individual either following reflection on their own practise requirements, or in consultation with their employer. Individuals also regulated by another licensing body would when the content was appropriate, be able to use CPD activity that counted towards their primary regulators requires to also meet their CLC requirements.

The mandated areas will include areas such as ethics, professional standards, and consumer protections, while individuals will have more choice around how they maintain and improve their legal, technical and industry knowledge in their specialist area or areas (see annex 1).

Question Title

* 2. Do you agree with the move away from a fixed hours-based framework to an activity-based framework?

Question Title

* 3. Do you agree that the activity components should include specific direction on areas such as:
a. ethics, professional standards, and consumer protections;
b.whilst allowing individuals to choose from externally assessed and non-assessed activity to maintain and improve their legal, technical and industry knowledge in their specialist areas, such as the topics suggested in annex 1?

Reporting

CLC Lawyers report their competed CPD annually at the point of licence renewal by 1 November each year. Additionally, CLC lawyers applying for a licence modification, or reinstatement of a licence after a period of not holding an active licence, are also required to provide evidence that they have maintained the CLC’s mandatory annual CPD requirements at the point of making the licensing application.

There will be a heightened emphasis on satisfactory CPD activity and reporting as a condition of annual licence renewals and modifications at all levels.

Individuals - Each individual in one of the categories at above will be required to submit an annual statement of CPD completed with supporting evidence of assessment where necessary. As a consequence, individuals looking to move into new roles, as HoLP or HoFA etc, will also be able to demonstrate to the CLC their suitability for appointment through relevant and more clearly laid out CPD activity.

Employers - will be required to demonstrate that the needs of the entity for ongoing competence are being met through individual CPD activities. Each regulated entity will be required to submit of statement of its maintenance of ongoing competence annually, within the standard three-year inspection cycle, or in response to specific requirements set by CLC in response to monitoring or disciplinary findings.

The CLC - reporting by individuals and entities will be used by the CLC to inform its risk profile of regulated entities, via our own assessment, and any that may be required by the LSB or other regulators such as OPBAS/HMG. Such activity may entail follow-up compliance and reporting activity with either individuals or entities.

Assessments

The framework will expect elements of CPD activity to be externally assessed (though this might be quite light touch) and some to be self-assessed.

Question Title

* 4. Do you agree that an activity framework should include specific direction on the appropriate balance of externally assessed and non- assessment components?

Question Title

* 5. Do you agree with the inclusion of a regulated entity responsibility in the CPD framework, whereby CLC regulated entities will be required to demonstrate that the needs of the entity for ongoing competence are being met through individual CPD activities?

Question Title

* 6. Do you think that each CLC regulated entity should be required to submit of statement of its maintenance of ongoing competence annually or integrated into the inspection cycle?

Question Title

* 7. Do you agree that each CLC regulated entity should be required to submit of statement of its maintenance of ongoing competence in response to specific requirements set by CLC in response to monitoring or disciplinary findings?

Development / Improvements

The framework will enable the CLC to mandate specific CPD activity where needed following monitoring and inspection findings and/or disciplinary action. The CLC will develop an approach within the revised CPC framework that provides for appropriate remedial action to be taken to address competence and/or conduct issues in its:

• Enforcement regime, whereby practices working toward compliance will be expected to plan targeted education and training action to address specific areas of competence, practise, and risk; and

• Disciplinary regime, whereby providing the Adjudication Panel with a new practical framework from which it will be able to mandate rehabilitative sanctions alongside its traditional sanctions. Remedial action in this context will be measured and intended to support authorised persons and those in scope to improve or correct competence and conduct issues.

Question Title

* 8. The framework will enable the CLC to mandate specific CPD activity where needed following enforcement and/or disciplinary action. Do you agree with this approach?

Transitional Arrangements

The CLC is considering the length and nature of transitional arrangements in the move to the new framework if it is approved. Views on this issues are welcome. Final details on the requirements for regulated firms and individuals will be published later in this process.

Question Title

* 9. Do you have any comments on what kind of transitional arrangements should be any place?

Other considerations

The CLC already operates and robust revalidation framework for lawyers seeking to reinstate a licence after a period of absence from practise, which includes externally courses and informally assessed CPD as a pre-condition of application. The revised CPD framework will also ensure that standard CPD activity is more meaningful.

Therefore, we are not proposing that a revised CPD framework extended into a universal revalidation framework for all CLC lawyers. Doing so would create a revalidation framework in excess of those in place for CLC counterparts.

We are also keen to assess whether there would be appetite from our regulated community and stakeholders for the CLC to extend its oversight of either, CPD training providers or more extensively by branding specific CPD courses.

This might include an approach is limited to the CLC approving CPD providers who continue to design and offer their own courses; or possibly extend into a CLC accreditation of CPD course under a branded CPD offering.

Question Title

* 10. We are keen to assess what, if any appetite there would be for the CLC to be more involved in the oversight of CPD providers and more extensively the accreditation of CPD courses.

T