When I was Law Society President in 2007, the Legal Services Act was enacted.

This Act set up a new regulatory regime for the legal profession with an overarching Regulator for the professional bodies, including the Law Society, called the Legal Services Board.

Fundamental principles were established by the Act to guide regulation. These included the promotion of access to justice, the safeguarding of the public, and the encouragement of competition in the marketplace to name but three.

The Law Society was required to split representation from regulation and indeed it had already set up the Solicitors Regulation Authority (SRA) to be an independent regulatory body.

Since then the SRA have been the regulators of the solicitor profession, making the rules about qualification of lawyers and ensuring their continued competence to act for clients. The bad apples are referred to the Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal for appropriate action to be taken which is invariably a strike-off for dishonesty, and that is quite right.

The SRA are now introducing a new Solicitors Qualifying Exam (SQE) to replace the Legal Practice Course, although a period of two years working in a legal environment is still required. This no longer needs to be formal training as currently required by the Training Contract regulations, which requires a Solicitor to gain experience in three areas of law.

Whilst the SQE is a step forward from the current system, it remains to be seen whether future Solicitors will have the wide range of experience that they are currently required to have. Not requiring that they do seems to me a retrograde step.

However, changes to be made to our current regulations from the 26th November pose an even greater threat to the safeguards that the public enjoy when they seek legal advice.  At present, all law firms have to have compulsory professional negligence cover of at least £2 million and if incorporated £3 million. 

With the justification of increasing competition in the marketplace, lawyers employed outside the regulatory environment will not have to comply with these rules. They can provide legal services to clients without guaranteed insurance cover and without the additional safeguard of a Compensation Fund which all regulated lawyers have to pay into. This covers losses if for some reason insurance is not in place.

These safeguards are almost unparalleled in the service sector.

In future, unless a law firm is undertaking what are called ‘reserved activities’ (property work, litigation, probate and criminal law) then the consumer may find themselves without cover if something goes wrong.

There is a requirement to make this lack of cover clear in terms of business, but who reads the small print?

Rather than providing extra safeguards for the consumer, the hiving off of the SRA to be an independent body not controlled by lawyers appears to be having exactly the opposite effect. 

The Legal Services Board seems more interested in the competition point than it does in safeguarding the consumer.

12 years on from the Act coming into force, we are now moving into a world where some lawyers will provide full safeguards for the public and others will not.

Law, on the whole, is an occasionally required service for the consumer and often a distress purchase. Price competition has never been a driver in the marketplace and it does seem extraordinary that our regulators are throwing consumer safeguards out of the window for what seems very little benefit to the public at large. 

Indeed, it seems to me that quite the opposite is true. I am not usually a moaning Minnie, but I am proud of our profession’s high standards and don’t like them being diluted.