Chamber and committees

Thank you for that. Convener, Lord Ericht answered my other question earlier.

No.

Can you expand on why you are no longer of the view that there is a need for regulation of the title “lawyer”?

Is the bill as drafted in line with the Scottish Government’s better regulation principles, as proposed in your report?

Good morning, panel. First, I will touch on entity regulation. In its submission, the Law Society said that it would

“provide suggested amendments for Stage 2”.

Do you want to expand on that?

Over the past few weeks, I have asked various witnesses about the provisions in the bill in relation to making it an offence to use the title of “lawyer” with intent to deceive. What are your views on Professor Mayson’s argument that title regulation will not benefit consumers because various people with legal qualifications can legitimately describe themselves as lawyers and provide legal services without being a solicitor or advocate? Roddy Dunlop, do you have a view on that?

Yes, I am. Thank you very much, panel.

Good morning, panel. I apologise for not being there in person.

Colin Bell touched on entity regulation in his opening remarks. Can you give us your views on the need for entity regulation, as proposed in the bill?

Yes, thank you. Would any panel member like to add to that?

I have just one more question, if I may, convener. What are the witnesses’ views on making it an offence to use the title “lawyer” with intent to deceive in connection with providing legal services to the public for fee, gain or reward? I do not know who wants to come in on that first.