Legal Services Bill [HL]

moved Amendment No. 435: 435: Clause 169, page 88, line 20, at end insert— ““( ) The duty to comply with regulatory arrangements overrides any obligations which a person may have, including to shareholders (otherwise than under criminal law), if those obligations are inconsistent with the duty to comply with the regulatory arrangements.”” The noble Lord said: My Lords, the amendment attempts to make explicit the relationship between regulatory obligations and other responsibilities, such as commercial concerns and the wishes of shareholders. As I recall, the Minister had considerable sympathy with this principle in Committee. She seemed satisfied that as long as a statutory duty to comply with the professional conduct rules exists, there would be no need for an override provision. But there would be no harm in including this in principle in the Bill; indeed, it would be desirable. It is almost inevitable that there could at some point be a conflict between the professional conduct rules and the duty to shareholders. An explicit override provision would then become highly desirable, if not entirely necessary. Making this relationship clear from the outset to potential investors in legal service providers would also ease the tension between the effective provision of legal services and pure commercial considerations. I beg to move.