80 Asian Journal of Legal Education 4(2)
regulatory domains that regulators, particularly those of professional activities, are engaged in. These
domains often include the control of risk, the creation and management of compliance regimes, the
protection of consumer interests and the monitoring of performance and outcomes cultures.4 At a meta-
level, it includes the management of the processes of regulation and deregulation itself by which a
regulator’s activities are authorized and implemented.5 Recently, a group of regulatory strategies have
come to be adopted as alternatives to more adversarial command-and-control regimes.6 These include
risk-based regulation, meta-regulation, principles-based regulation, outcomes-focused regulation (OFR)
and strategies of enrolment, among others.7 Such forms of regulation are in competition with each other
and, as Casey and Scott pointed out quoting Black, are responses to an underlying legitimacy dilemma:
it ‘is simply not possible to have complete legitimacy from all aspects of [the regulated] environment’.8
In this tangled, contested field, and in place of a conservative view of regulation-as-oversight merely,
I argue first that regulatory theory and practices applied to legal education should go beyond the basics
of control of risk, management of compliance and protection of consumer interest to the development of
regulatory relationship between stakeholders that will improve educational theory and practice. Second,
I argue that four years on from the Legal Education and Training Review (LETR) report and the
articulation in that report of a ‘shared space’ approach to legal education regulation, we need that
approach more urgently than before. In developing it, we need to take account of multi- and inter-
disciplinary approaches, and interjurisdictional approaches that consist of not just global best practices
but the complex weave of global with local circumstances, local regulatory codes and local practices.
Taking account of the cognitive, organizational and social contexts of regulation in this way helps us to
understand what may succeed locally, and why. I give an extended example of this in development
and practice from professional legal practice and regulation in Scotland. Finally, I shall argue that
transformation of regulatory relationship cannot take place unless we have an informational and data
structure that is commensurate with our ambitions for regulation in legal education. Throughout, there is
an implicit argument for interdisciplinarity. I argue elsewhere in depth that interdisciplinarity is both
conceptual and practical in nature.9 Too often we treat education and law in separate silos, without
recognizing the effect that one has on the other, and how our distinctive modes and discourses are formed
from jurisdictional cultures—which include regulation. We also do not sufficiently recognize the
advantages of interdisciplinarity in opening up the fractures in disciplines so as to enable expansive
4 In Webb et al, supra note 16 at 87, we adopted the definition of risk-based regulation from Black and Baldwin as ‘the adoption
of regulatory strategies that are based on “an evidence-based means of targeting the use of resources and of prioritizing attention
to the highest risks in accordance with a transparent, systematic, and defensible framework.”’ Julia Black & Robert Baldwin.
(2010). Really responsive risk-based regulation. Law & Policy, 32, at 181.
5 In the Legal Education and Training Report, we dealt with many such issues, and my views, on both regulated and unregulated
sectors of the profession, have not changed since we wrote the report. Id. at 264.
6 See Regulation: After Command and Control, in thE human FacE oF Law: ESSayS in honour oF donaLd harriS 45–73
(Clarendon Press, 1997).
7 For an account of these and other approaches, and their performance within the financial services industry in the recent global
financial crisis, see Julia Black, Paradoxes and Failures: ‘New Governance’ Techniques and the Financial Crisis, 75 mod. L. rEv.
8 Donal Casey & Colin Scott, The Crystallization of Regulatory Norms, 38 J. L. & Soc’y 76, 92 (2011), citing Julia Black,
Constructing and Contesting Legitimacy and Accountability in Polycentric Regulatory Regimes, 2 rEg. & govErnancE 137, 153
9 See, for example, Paul Maharg, Sea-change, 18 int’L J. LEgaL ProF. 139–64 (2012); PauL maharg, tranSForming LEgaL
Education: LEarning and tEaching thE Law in thE EarLy twEnty-FirSt cEntury (Ashgate Publishing, 2007).