The BSB has responded to its chambers regulation consultation. The question of responsibility is still open.
The BSB has published its response to the consultation on the regulation of barristers in chambers. The response confirms several changes that chambers have been waiting on, and flags two further proposals that will go out for separate consultation.
What the BSB has confirmed
The BSB will not reintroduce a kitemark scheme for chambers and will not progress proposals around the merger of small sets. It will consolidate all practice management rules in a single section of its website - a change the Bar Council has welcomed, and one that should make it easier for chambers to identify what is required of them in one place.
What remains unresolved
The Bar Council has raised significant concerns about the lack of clarity over what compliance looks like and where responsibility lies in the case of non-compliance. The core question of whether every member of a set or just those in leadership positions bears responsibility remains unanswered.
The Bar Council’s position is direct: heads of chambers who take on voluntary positions cannot and should not be held accountable for the failings of an individual barrister in their chambers. The BSB does not have the power to regulate chambers as the regulated entity - the individual barrister is. These proposals, the Bar Council says, muddy those waters.
Two new proposals going out for further consultation
The BSB is now proposing to consult further on two changes that were not included in the original consultation: a requirement for chambers to publish their governance arrangements, and the creation of a new register of chambers.
Both are significant. A governance publication requirement would formalise what many chambers currently manage informally. A chambers register would create a new layer of regulatory visibility, and potentially a new compliance obligation, for sets that have not previously been required to register with the BSB directly.
What chambers should do now
The outcomes-based regulation direction is not going away. Whatever the final form of the rules, the expectation that chambers have documented governance arrangements - who holds responsibility for what, how decisions are made, how compliance is monitored - is becoming a baseline rather than a best practice. Chambers that haven’t reviewed their governance structure recently should consider doing so before the next consultation lands.