Legal Services Reform - In Whose Name?

The theory goes that “consumers” were badly served by the professional regulation systems of the past. To keep the legal services sector fit for purpose it had to be reformed and competition introduced both at regulatory and practitioner level. The bogey man of Tesco law was promoted – interestingly not by Tesco – but the scare tactics to justify changes introduced have been relentless.

Way back in 2003 – the Clementi brief was “To consider what regulatory framework would best promote competition, innovation and the public and consumer interest in an efficient, effective and independent legal sector. To recommend a framework which will be independent in representing the public and consumer interest, comprehensive, accountable, consistent, flexible, transparent, and no more restrictive or burdensome than is clearly justified”[Our emphasis]. Taking a dispassionate view of the events over the last decade, both driven by the regulatory changes, and the market itself, it is hard to conclude that the interests of consumers have always remained at the forefront of every ones thoughts and actions.

Very few detailed analyses of the economic implications of the changes to the legal services market overall have been undertaken. Among those that have, they have identified, for example, disaggregation of legal services as a major theme. That a sea of change is happening with or without the intervention of the regulators and the esteemed Reviews and reviewers is evident.

So we have set out in this series of blogs to run through the discrete issues in turn and put the numbers and facts relevant to them in plain view. A clearer understanding of the vested interests and the directions in which they steer the debate can only help. We have no axe to grind here, and hope to present a dispassionate and independent view of the landscape. We are also prepared to say what others are not.

It may well be, for example, that some would conclude the Jackson Review is essentially about keeping big risk items off the Legal Aid and NHS budgets; that Legal Aid in the UK is probably at least twice as expensive as it should be, and that the Legal Services Act is all about tooling up to defend protectionism and established monopolies and oligopolies, not increasing competition for legal services.

That no-one is candid about these positions is a testament to the strength of the legal professional lobby. For good or bad – it is an exceptionally pervasive and effective one. It could also be that some would conclude the real money has already disintermediated the legal profession which is increasingly seen by the deeper, cannier commercial pockets as simply a cost of failure – and one that they are increasingly reluctant to pay.