I’ve worked in environments with CIPD people alongside solicitors, and what they are sensitive about is being perceived as somehow lesser to their legal colleagues. In truth, their training when applied to analysis of a Claimant’s situation can be vital in identifying HR-related failures such as inadequate investigation or policies. They also tend to have a much stronger feel as to structural failings in employers.

So far as your other point goes, I think HR practitioners may be perceived as independent if they’re advising in the right context. The requirement to be insured means that advisers in these circumstances will be holding out and marketing as providing independent advice. If I work for Smith Ltd, get given a compromise agreement by an HR officer and am simply told to take it to their other HR officer friend at Jones Ltd, then yes I have concerns about the independence and strength of my advice. If I go to TescoEmploymentClaims and see someone who tells me at the start they’re a chartered HR professional who works for Claimants then I’m probably satisfied.

One of the benefits of a multi-disciplinary approach is the range of talents brought to the table. This approach will bring huge benefits to Claimant-representing organisations - and not just the bigger boys. Enabling the CIPD qualified rep to sign off the agreement reinforces this while maintaining safeguards for the employee.

What you don’t deal with is whether HR practioners will be perceived as independent by would be clients?

Non lawyers have always been able to represent at Tribunal, now they have to be regulated but don’t let the truth get in the way of your blog.This may be a problem for a non regulated CIPD member who is advising on a compromise agreement.

I agree with you that the future is for bigger players to come in and buy out smaller players, but there will always be room for smaller players.

I ‘m sure most HR practitioners would want to distinguish themselves from Solicitors and vice versa.