# Benson Commission

> Mediated Wiki article. Canonical URL: https://mediated.wiki/source/Benson_Commission
> Markdown URL: https://mediated.wiki/source/Benson_Commission.md
> Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Benson_Commission
> Source revision: 1299492049
> License: Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 International (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/)

{{Short description|Royal Commission on legal services}}
{{Use dmy dates|date=April 2022}}
The Royal Commission on Legal Services, commonly known as the '''Benson Commission''' (after its chairman [Sir Henry Benson](/source/Henry_Benson%2C_Baron_Benson)) was a [Royal Commission](/source/Royal_Commission) set up by the [Labour](/source/Labour_Party_(UK)) government of [Harold Wilson](/source/Harold_Wilson) to "examine the structure, organisation, training and regulation of the legal profession and to recommend those changes that would be desirable to the interests of justice".<ref name=w1/> The commission and its report are seen as one of the elements that led to the passing of the [Courts and Legal Services Act 1990](/source/Courts_and_Legal_Services_Act_1990).

==Background==
During the 1960s the legal profession ([barrister](/source/barrister)s, [solicitor](/source/solicitor)s, and [certificated notaries](/source/Notary_public)) came under fire for what was perceived to be poor performance, the high cost of [conveyancing](/source/conveyancing), and its failure to deal with the needs of all levels of society.<ref name=w1>White (1991) p.4</ref> In response, the Labour government under [Harold Wilson](/source/Harold_Wilson) created a [Royal Commission](/source/Royal_Commission) on Legal Services, known as the Benson Commission (after its chairman [Sir Henry Benson](/source/Henry_Benson%2C_Baron_Benson)), which was asked to "examine the structure, organisation, training and regulation of the legal profession and to recommend those changes that would be desirable to the interests of justice".<ref name=w1/> The Commission frightened legal professionals, who believed that they were likely to face severe structural changes and lose their monopolies on [probate](/source/probate) and [conveyancing](/source/conveyancing) work.<ref name=w1/>

==Commission==
The commission was led by Sir Henry Benson, and also had a sub-committee looking at legal education, which was led by [R.G. Dahrendorf](/source/Ralf_Dahrendorf).<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.emeraldinsight.com/Insight/viewContentItem.do;jsessionid=9F328F753CC45ECD41DD5147379E5983?contentType=Article&hdAction=lnkpdf&contentId=1702699&history=true|title=Emerald: Article Requests: Indefinite articles|publisher=[Emerald Group Publishing](/source/Emerald_Group_Publishing)|accessdate=2009-05-27|archive-date=24 March 2020|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20200324130933/http://www.emeraldinsight.com/Insight/viewContentItem.do;jsessionid=9F328F753CC45ECD41DD5147379E5983?contentType=Article&hdAction=lnkpdf&contentId=1702699&history=true|url-status=dead}}</ref>

The commission's report was presented to Parliament in October 1979.<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.lawlink.nsw.gov.au/lrc.nsf/pages/R32CHP2|title=Lawlink NSW: Report 32 (1982) - Second Report on the Legal Profession: Complaints, Discipline and Professional Standards|publisher=Lawlink|accessdate=2009-05-27}}</ref> It did not propose any radical changes, with one editorial describing it as "characterised by an over-anxiety not to offend the professional establishment".<ref name=w1/> In particular it ruled out the possibility of partnerships between barristers.<ref>Zander (2007) p.752</ref> It also upheld the idea of a split profession (one with both solicitors and barristers, in contrast to a [fused profession](/source/fused_profession)), saying that:
<blockquote>''"with regard to the administration of justice, the weight of evidence is strongly to the effect that a two-branch profession is more likely than a fused one to ensure the high quality of advocacy that is indispensable, so long as our system remains in its present form, to secure the proper quality of justice"''<ref>Mothersole (1999) p.82</ref></blockquote>

The report also rejected the suggestion to allow solicitors [rights of audience](/source/rights_of_audience) in the [High Court](/source/High_Court_of_Justice)<ref>Jackson (1989) p.486</ref> The report concluded that the practice of law was a profession, and that a profession had to be independent of government, because without independence the interests of a client cannot be a primary consideration. It did not challenge the existing professional self-regulation through organisations such as the [Law Society](/source/Law_Society_of_England_and_Wales) and Bar Council.<ref name=w2>White (1991) p.5</ref> The Commission did recommend an examination of the court and legal procedures to see if time and money could be saved for the parties involved.<ref name=mer1>Merricks (1990) p.1</ref>

The report also left the [conveyancing](/source/conveyancing) monopoly of solicitors intact, although it did pave the way for the system of [licensed conveyancer](/source/licensed_conveyancer)s established by the [Access to Justice Act 1975](/source/Access_to_Justice_Act_1975).<ref name=ind>{{cite news|url=https://www.independent.co.uk/news/people/obituarylord-benson-1611052.html|title=OBITUARY:Lord Benson |date=13 March 1995|work=The Independent|accessdate=2009-05-27 | location=London | first1=Brian | last1=Jenkins}}</ref>

In other ways, however, the report was revolutionary&nbsp;– it recommended a Council of Legal Services to advise the [Lord Chancellor](/source/Lord_Chancellor) (something eventually realised in the [Lord Chancellor's Advisory Committee on Legal Education and Conduct](/source/Lord_Chancellor's_Advisory_Committee_on_Legal_Education_and_Conduct)), a movement of advice services such as the [Citizens Advice Bureau](/source/Citizens_Advice_Bureau) into the legal fold, and a single unified body to regulate [barrister](/source/barrister)s, rather than a fragmentation between the [Bar Council](/source/Bar_Council) and [Inns of Court](/source/Inns_of_Court).<ref name=ind/>

The government response to the Benson Committee's report was published in 1983, and established a [Civil Justice Review](/source/Civil_Justice_Review) to examine court procedure.<ref name=mer1/> The report of the review board was put before the House of Commons on 7 June 1988.<ref>{{cite web|url=https://api.parliament.uk/historic-hansard/written-answers/1988/jun/07/civil-justice-review|title=Civil Justice Review  |date=7 June 1988|work=[Parliamentary Debates (Hansard)](/source/Hansard)|access-date=2009-05-23}}</ref>

==Impact==
The report did not have the impact that Benson wanted - The government took four years to reply to the report, and did not institute many of the changes he recommended.<ref name=ind/> By 1995 the citizen advice services were still not within the legal mainstream, and it took 12 years to implement other recommendations (such as that the Lord Chancellor should have a junior minister in the [House of Commons](/source/House_of_Commons_of_the_United_Kingdom)).<ref name=ind/> Despite this the commission and its report are seen as leading to the [Courts and Legal Services Act 1990](/source/Courts_and_Legal_Services_Act_1990), even though the act disagreed with the report of the Commission in many ways.<ref name=w2/>

==References==
{{Reflist|2}}

==Bibliography==
*{{cite book|last=Jackson|first=Richard Meredith|authorlink1=R. M. Jackson|author2=J. R. Spencer|title=Jackson's Machinery of Justice|publisher=Cambridge University Press|date=1989|edition=8th|isbn=0-521-31767-3}}
*{{cite book|last=Merricks|first=Walter|author2=Russell Wallman|title=The Courts and Legal Services Act - A Solicitor's Guide|publisher=The Law Society|location=London|date=1990|isbn=1-85328-053-4}}
*{{cite book|last=Mothersole|first=Brenda |author2=Ann Ridley|title=A-level law in action|publisher=Cengage Learning EMEA|date=1999|edition=2nd|isbn=0-333-72780-0}}
*{{cite book|last=White|first=Robin|title=A Guide to the Courts and Legal Services Act 1990|publisher=Fourmat Publishing|location=London|date=1991|isbn=1-85190-120-5}}
*{{cite book|last=Zander|first=Michael|title=Cases and Materials on the English Legal System|publisher=Cambridge University Press|date=2007|edition=10th|isbn=978-0-521-67540-6}}

Category:British Royal Commissions
Category:Law of the United Kingdom
Category:Year of establishment missing

---
Adapted from the Wikipedia article [Benson Commission](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Benson_Commission) by Wikipedia contributors ([contributor history](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Benson_Commission?action=history)). Available under [Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 International](https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/). Changes may have been made.