Sorry, but the SRA is right
I want you to sit down and take a deep breath. Perhaps have a stiff drink to hand. Maybe one of those stress balls too. I’m going to write something in support of the Solicitors Regulation Authority.
Before I start let me make it clear I’m no apologist for the organisation – indeed I’m fairly sure they didn’t appreciate my fairly one-sided response to their (still wrong) decision to scrap the trainee minimum salary.
Any story on the SRA is guaranteed to lead to dozens of angry responses from solicitors in a daze at the constant announcements and tweaks leaving them bemused at what exactly they have to do to avoid breaking the rules. And don’t get me started on the monthly board meetings, when the ‘public’ session consists of 15 minutes of being told nothing of any real use. One rare solicitor visitor last week walked away bemused, asking why she hadn’t been allowed to speak, forgetting that the public are to be seen but not heard.
And yet I believe the regulator is right to want the power to fine firms that can’t meet deadlines, as outlined at last week’s meeting. The trigger for this plea is the ongoing issue with dozens, maybe hundreds, of firms that have yet to nominate a pair of compliance officers pithily dubbed the COLPs and COFAs.
Don’t get me wrong, there is no way I would want to perform either role. As far as I can see, you’re in trouble with your colleague if you tell tales of non-compliance and in trouble with the SRA if you don’t. It’s a thankless task and unpaid to boot. But despite most having reservations, thousands of firms did get their nominations back before the 31 July deadline.
They canvassed opinion in the office, read through the smallprint and filled out the forms. This was laborious, tedious and most probably took them away from actually earning money.
For those that sat on their hands, wilfully ignored the regulations or simply couldn’t be bothered, why should they escape having to go through the process as well? They may have spent the time earning fees whilst their competitors slavishly adhered to the regulations. Yes, so this request for more power looks like empire-building. Yes there are probably other things they should be prioritising.
But rules are rules – and while you may not agree with the principle, it’s ultimately unfair on the firms that did comply not to sanction those that did not.
On this one issue at least, I’m with the SRA. Now please don’t swear at me.
Follow John on Twitter
Comments
That's fine John, but what
That's fine John, but what sanctions should there be on a regulator that fails in its core function of issuing Practising Certificates?
and also your article
and also your article presupposes that the Regulations were appropriate in the first place - "light touch" has been replaced by a bullying equivocal touch!
It’s the hypocrisy I can’t stomach
It’s the hypocrisy I can’t stomach – they expect solicitors to achieve standards in terms of very rapid turnaround of SRA queries that they are not prepared to set themselves, let alone meet themselves
SRA
I have complied in a timely manner with the new rules but the rules remain a symptom of make work and function creep at the SRA. They are not an organisation I would trust to be in charge of a spot fine regime.
Walk before running
I agree with John that firm's that willfully missed the deadlines do deserve sanction.I agree that a system of 'on the spot' fixed fines would ensure that firms took the issues more seriously.
However I think the issues that the SRA has had with issuing practising certificates; the MySRA debarcle; the exorbitant delays in dealing with simple and admitted investigations and numerous other administrative errors, delays and general 'cock ups' evidence that while 'on the spot' fines may be a sensible idea to discourage wilfull non-compiance, I don't think the SRA is up to the job.
I had numerous firms calling for advice because the link they'd been sent for nomination didn't work, they hadn't received an email and even 'we don't use email and haven't received anything in the post'. In those situations I don't believe the SRA is currently capable of competently determining who should justifiably be fined and I also don't believe that they would be able to administer an appeals process without ridiculous delays putting many firms who did try to comply in a position where they are further disadvantgaed because of the SRA's ineptitude.
I think the SRA should focus on improving its administration, getting the right staffing levels and systems in place and generally working to alter what is currently a very negative image before it seeks to impose another poorly administered (and what will clearly be seen by a good proportion of the profession as being draconian) regulatory system.
Walk before running...
SRA and time limits
I do not practice, but keep up my Certificate. Or rather, I would if the SRA had yet managed to run the system for the renewal in April 2011, let alone that for April 2012. Having had a quick look at the Regulations, I cannot see that SRA has the power to extend the time, and, therefore, they are in breach. The latest information is that they have abandoned the web based system (that I was told HAD to be used) and a paper system will run from 3rd September this year covering both of the last two years. However, as of 12th September, nothing has been received. I have assumed I can take a couple of years to reply.......
not an apologist, but....
"Before I start let me make it clear I’m no apologist for the organisation"
But you are "sorry" that the SRA is right?
Good comment, but don't try to have it both ways.
Sorry, but the SRA is right
Heard today from SRA about keeping my name on the roll. May be they are finally getting their act together
SRA
Here are extracts from the introduction of what I believe to be the latest edition of the SRA's handbook (my highlighting):
"The SRA Code of Conduct (the Code) sets out our outcomes-focused conduct requirements so that YOU CAN CONSIDER HOW BEST to achieve the right outcomes for your clients taking into account the way that your firm works and its client base. "
So far, so good. In other words, it is the outcome for the client that is important and how we achieve that outcome is up to us as solicitors.
"No code can foresee or address every issue or ethical dilemma which may arise."
It is good that the SRA recognizes this obvious point.
"You must strive to uphold the intention of the Code as well as its letter."
What a pity about the last five words.
There is a saying that rules are for the obedience of the foolish and the guidance of the wise. It seems that we may not be entitled to take the handbook as guidance and that we must obey to the letter the manifold edicts of the SRA.
It seems also that we are saddled with regulation focused regulation, not outcome focused regulation.
SRA
The SRA is like the FSA..... Useless ! What have they ever done positive for their members in contrast to other EU countries' equivalent, eg German's Rechtsanwaltskammer where the member is able to contribute towards its pension scheme.
SRA
I have been a Financial Adviser for many years and seen the introduction of outcome focused regulation by the FSA. This method of regulation was largely responsible for the financial disaster and the consequent economic collapse of the UK economy. OFR simply means that "the end justifies the means" no matter the process.Banks took massive risks and as long as they declared profits( whether real or imaginary), its ok. OFR is a very lazy and incompetent method of regulating a complex organisation. The SRA is tired of formulating and codifying rules and regulations and have now left it to individual firms to make the rules and regulations bearing in mind the overriding principles. Fantastic in principle but stupid in practice. If the OFR was such and unmitigated disaster with the FSA why does the SRA believe it will work with Law firms? The FSA has now been scapped and the Financial Conduct Authority ( one of its successor) is now drafting new rules and regulations governing Financial services.Certainty of rules brings certainty and consistency in practice. Any regulator unable to issue proper rules and regulations for its members should be scrapped.
SRA
The SRA was conceived on Planet Looney. Its parents were a bunch of morons wanting to Rule The World. Their Oligarchs are Plant,Townsend and someone else equally forgettable. Sound like something from Roal Dahl's Fantastic Fox but lacking the loveable talents of Boggis Bunce and Bean, one fat,one thin,one mean....
Thinking of retarining to be a plumber or a grave-digger, at least jobs that are useful and wanted.
SRA
There should be no room for apologies, for excuses and for debate, but as we see all so often the regulator suffers none from those regulated, yet expects them all to be available with regard to itself. Forgotten is the damage that is done to the profession. I have been a solicitor for 20 years, in those 20 years, I have little done to protect the profession from the ping pong hobby horse of one politician to another and one incumbent government to another. In the early days, still full of the fervour of justice and helping the downtrodden, I forgave such indiscretions from the body that was to protect and represent us, but as I got longer in the tooth, more downtrodden by this quick sand of regulation and disappointment, came the realisation that in order to judge what bad practice was, the regulator simply looked in the mirror.
It shocks me that what is expected of the profession, is not expected of the regulator. Correct me if I am wrong, but the regulators role is to protect the public from the worst in our profession, of which we must all admit, there are. Who then protects the public from the regulator.
When good iTMS are closed and good solicitors, those who have served the community well for years are forced out of the profession, who then provides access to justice. When the profession I'd overtaken by those that can tick boxes and those that can process manage extraordinaire, but have little understanding for the plight of the client who requires just a moment of time, who then provides access to justice.
So Mr Hyde, it is not that you are or are not an apologist for the organisation and one article on minimum salaries is not justification one way or another, it is more about an organisation that iOS too blind or too arrogant to see its own failing that incenses me.
When the SRA tackles it's management issues and it's overbearing touch (despite the lie that masqueraded as the "light touch" ) does it truly have the moral legitimacy to lecture the rest of us, let alone regulate us.
It lis a sad and sorry state of affairs, but as I said, 20 years is proof of that.
SRA IS USELESS
The SRA is useless. Just like its predecessors. The profession complains about the burdens laid on it because of over regulation. The SLA's problem is that they are so busy chasing small matters that they can't be bothered to deal with big ones
I found out that a large firm with an international reputation based very close to Trafalgar Square had obtained by deception over £27,000 from the estate of a Patient in the Court of Protection. Despite the paper work being absolutely watertight, the SLA couldn't be bothered to investigate.
So when will they consider that something should be investigated? Yet Average Solicitor who has never done anything seriously wrong can be discipline and send to SDT and fined £10,000
No wonder the profession has only 47% approval from the public.
A senior partner in a large well known practice described the SLA to me as "a joke". Worse - it is for the profession actually a sick joke.
The comments all have a
The comments all have a common theme - a loss of confidence and professional self esteem, springing from a lack of leadership by our professional body.
The lack of leadership from an organisation which should be defending the best interests of members is profoundly depressing for many. I know since it is a common theme of many people I speak to
Taking a macro perspective strong leadership would enable a firm grip to be taken of the political agenda to prevent further damage to a profession seen as a soft target by duplicitous politicians and others.It is no good leaving such matters to a permanent group of technocrats at Chancery Lane obsessed with process.This lacks passion and has little impact on our standing in the eyes of the public
It is a sad indictment of the Law Society that instead of enriching and enhancing the brand of "Solicitor" it has decided that the way forward for the profession is to say to the public that being a solicitor is inadequate and no longer of value, and we must now in effect "re-qualify" as accredited specialists with a scout like emblem on our letterheadings
This is a fundamental strategic error.
The public and business even now still associate solicitors with quality and ethical conduct with such perceptions having deep roots established over many years.
The Law Society Council must get a grip or otherwise in the words of a famous private we are all doomed!
SRA
Frankly I am astonished.
So you think we solicitors must be held accountable if we don't meet deadlines but the SRA should not????
Beyond belief!!!!!!!!
The SRA are an arrogant and totally incompetant organisation who could organise a ............ in a brewery.
All I need say is "Practicing Certificates!!!!!!!!"
SRA
"Sorry, but the SRA is right."
No they're not. About anything. Ever.
SRA
It is a fact that people work for public bodies become detached from the day to day problems of those who don't. Another problem is that people work for such bodies so they can enjoy regular pay without worrying about the vagaries of the economy.
Unfortunately they tend to dish out advice and regulations without having to actually do anything themselves.
The philosophy of 'you do it straight away but we'll take our time' is ingrained in the system.
It will always be so. . You can't fight human nature,,just live with it.
SRA
you call SRA and try to explain something that is according to a book and acknowledged to be valid. response would not be deffierent than this:
" we appreciate but we are right" in other words: how dare you challenging our case worker?
What was it Lord Acton once
What was it Lord Acton once said?
Re
The Law Society has no right to start pushing on its find a solicitor page its own accreditation.
We are all solicitors and the Law Society is supposed to be there to represent all of us.
It is now failing to do this.
There are other accreditations as well and unless the Law Society starts representing the solicitor brand then we might as well form a rival organization.
Let's have an alternative to the LSoc and a vote
Any interest in forming a rival organization to the Law Society.
The Law Society property could be sold off for a start to provide funds for an alternative group who would represent all solicitors. Obviously there would need to be a large group of solicitors interested say 40% with practising certificates that should have all arrived by now .... hopefully
yes yes yes!
yes yes yes!
Entirely agree with this. The
Entirely agree with this.
The Law Society property in Chancery Lane is representative of the time, long ago, when the LS was a professional body of consequence. That is no longer the case and the freehold properties which it owns should be sold off, or at the very least rented out to produce some income.
Why the LS needs the Carey Street property remains a total mystery-but is entirely indicative of an institution in decline-lots of grandeur but no power at all, whilst not realising it (the British "Empire" springs to mind as a suitable comparison). All show, but no go.
I would back you!
I would back you!
Winding up
Madam President
Are you reading all these comments?
I doubt it-but in any event
I doubt it-but in any event they will be dismissed as just a few malcontents (who no doubt should be eating cake seeing as the bread has been taken away).
Can anybody explain to me, a
Can anybody explain to me, a creature from the other side, why the SRA has ensured that there are two sacrificial lambs per firm called a COLF and a COPA ?
It seems extraordinary and intellectually bankrupt, that on behalf of any number of individuals, that two individuals should be asked exclusively to carry extraordinary levels of risk.
Only an organisation existing in some parallel world with no connection with reality could dream up such concepts.
One more reason for radical change
The risk remains with the
The risk remains with the partners, the COs are not exclusively responsible.
Sorry, but the SRA is right
Sadly, it sounds as if the Law Society/ SRA has not changed one jot since those days, long ago now, when I worked in the Compensation Fund as a Consultant Caseworker. Initially, this was "the best job in the World." I loved the work and saw the Fund as the ultimate guarantor of the integrity of the profession. It was well-run, with a part-time manager who was also a Senior Caseworker. The whole focus was on supporting Caseworkers to restore misappropriated funds to clients in a timely fashion consistent with the discretionary trust status of the Fund.
Then the rot started to set in. A series of "managers" and "team leaders" was appointed, most of whom were not only technically ignorant but also administratively incompetent. Lacking the ability to provide technical support, they focussed on those peripheral things they thought they could control, such as whether Caseworkers processed their own work or whether the typing pool was used, much to the frustration of the dedicated technical staff. Turnover increased and staff were victimised.
I resigned following a ludicrous spat over holiday arrangements and wrote a detailed letter of explanation to the then Chief Executive, Janet Paraskeva. Her response was typical of the organisation - I was informed that "process managers" were necessary to the smooth functioning of the organisation, when my whole point was that it was of little point appointing people to "process manage" if they were utterly incapable of providing the technical support that the process required!
It seems from the above comments that it has been downhill all the since. The Law Society bureaucracy is a law unto itself, out of control and unaccountable. Arrogance and back-covering are its characteristics. The "organisation" should be abolished by the profession and replaced by something that works for the benefit of solicitors and their clients rather than the benefit of the managerial hierarchy that currently exists.
Yes, the Law Society has
Yes, the Law Society has relied, unfortunately, on a succession of "Chief Executives" who have no understanding whatsoever of a profession but are paid an inordinate amount of money for -well, what precisely?
It is a symptom of the fashion for "managerialism"-fine in an industrial setting no doubt (?-discuss!)-but useless elsewhere. The supreme example, of course, was when the "data" and "statistics" proved that the USA was winning the Vietnam War when it was, of course, losing badly. Reality eventually impacted, naturally, as it will in other spheres-not least that of law. The aftermath is usually far from pretty-and the casualties in the meantime are horrendous.
I agree
I too had the misfortune to work for the organisation and over 10yrs the organisation went from being a great place to work to being an absolute nightmare!
Managers are in place who have no legal background at all and were peviously employed in banks no less. Nice people, granted, but no clue! Casewokers who have no legal background, legal knowledge or legal training who were (and more worryingly still are!) making decisions to refer solicitors to the SDT.
The Chief Exec knows nothing about the legal profession and destroyed the GDC from whence he came and to top it all the Chief Operating Officer came from the LSC and was in charge at a time when it lost a shed load of money. He has also drated in one or more of his mates too.
The My SRA debacle was on-going when I was there and they were told then that the Practising Cerificate side of it it wouldn't work. Another £20m+ wasted(probably more like £30-40m now).
The whole organisation needs to be abolished together with the Legal Ombudsman Service and complaints handling overseen by one body.
Hang on isnt that what Clementi said?
Re:
I think that there needs to be a meeting of solicitors organized to find out why the Law Society allows the SRA to get away with its incompetence.
It is fatuous for The SRA to start talk of secondary powers so it can fine solicitors.They live in a very expensive glass house at the SRA.
Who is being sacked at the SRA for the practising certificate debacle?
How much did the computer problem at the SRA cost to fix and install?
Why is our President not answering these questions?
Why is the Law Society failing to protect the brand solicitor and indulging in monery making Law Society accreditation as being flagged up on their/ our website?
Why is there an industry in increasing our costs encouraged by the Law Society?
How are the Law Society to say their accreditation is better than any bodies on specialist areas of law?
Why does the Law Society not protect solicitors?
Why does it allow bureacratic regulation by the SRA which is unfit for purpose -
It might be because the SRA is still part of the Law Society? However there seems no advantage in that?!
Why does the Law Society allow the SRA to expect us solicitors to have business plans? If the SRA had a business plan then it would not be the poor quality body that it appears to be. The SRA cannot assess our business plans - we are in business to care for our clients and make a living.
Unless the President and others do something I think the Law Society will fragment and the biggest issue is the Law Society's failure to make a brand vof solicitor as opposed to doing what vit is doing and preferring by implication on its public website Law Society accreditation. What an insult to solicitors.
Well, you won't get answers
Well, you won't get answers to your questions from this President-or any of the people you pay at the Law Society. After all, you are just there to pay the money-and do as you are told.
How very dare you expect something for your money? Who do you think you are-a client?
As soon as the post of President was no longer subject to election by the members we got the self selecting (and self-satisfied) oligarchy currently in charge. That is always the way when democracy is jettisoned.
Incidentally, this debate
Incidentally, this debate will be closed down pretty sharpish on Monday-can't have a real debate in the Law Society!
Re:
If they close the debate down the Law Society will be ignoring its members and will probably fragment within 5 years with break away sections.
The SRA need to be looked at
The SRA need to be looked at properly, this cant go on.
Review processes required
Accuracy, accuracy, accuracy. Surely the three most important requirements for a lawyer.
Does this comment facility really close down today?
If so, it seems to me we need a standing web page provided by the Law Soc or the SRA where solicitors and perhaps others can annoymously debate the performance of the SRA in individual cases.
Of course John Hyde is right, but whicheve editor wrote his headline was wrong in not restricting it to the matter in the article, The accurate subject heading would be "The SRA is [very oftern] right, but ]sometimes] wrong [and unchhallengeable except at vast expense with a High Court who may know nothing about the problems invloved]/
Peronsally, I do think that parts of the SRA do a magnificent job. (Can I please be awarded the OBN, and get on the presidential gravy train?).
However, there is inadequate availability of consultative processes to enable peer review - the most democratic kind of review. Will the law Soc set it up?
Reality check
The reality is that solicitors need to be properly supported by the LS which it is failng to do at the moment look at its accreditation page on find a solicitor. There is no reference to the brand solicitor. In fairness last year support your solicitpor campaign by the LS was excellent.
The questions asked above need to be answered and not brushed under the carpet.
The reality is that there are many decent people at both the LS and SRA of course there are.
There is also disatifaction about the competence of certain sections of the SRA- and the redundancy of 90 people who were doing a great job in manually processing practising certificates and they are now nolonger there as a result of cut backs and the computer system failed.
There are three other words that apply to solicitors and regulators responsibility responsibility responsibility.
Then please Madam President
Then please Madam President take responsibility to save the profession
The Law Society, the SRA and Regulation
I work with the Lexcel practice management standard as a consultant and assessor. I used to be a residential conveyancer working in law firms. I am not a solicitor.
The vast majority of solicitors that I work with are highly committed to providing the best possible advice to their clients and work very hard to do so. Because of the nature of what I do, I work with many firms who are trying to improve practice management standards, client care and staff morale.
It is human nature - perfect people and organisations have yet to be invented - that regulators and the regulated are fallible. I'm sure the SRA are not pleased about the the way the new system for the issue of practice management systems was criticised - but I have worked (in a previous life) on a few law firm practice management system implementations that weren't exactly smooth either! There comes a point where you have to take a deep breath and let things go - the practising certificate debacle is now perhaps one of them?
I say that because there are tremendous pressures on all types of practices (I work with sole practitioners, partnerships, LLPs and incorporated companies) and whether they are having problems with getting indemnity insurance, running Legal aid contracts, understanding the position on referral fees or just getting the work in, there's a lot to get to grips with.
I don't like sweeping generalisations - but I'm going to make one anyway. Solicitors don't like being told what to do. I think that is clear from a lot of the comments made in reply to the above article. It's not really surprising - when working for a client, a solicitor 'worth their salt' will question everything - its part of the psyche not to meekly accept what they are being told.
Solicitors have a right to question the way they are regulated, of course they do. But do you know what? The most successful law firms I visit are the ones that consider the regulations, implement them, then run their businesses in the best way they can. Regulation is just 'stuff' to be dealt with. That doesn't mean its taken lightly, but if they get bogged down in the machinery of it, they won't use it to make their businesses more successful.
A lot of solicitors speak to me about the problems with outcomes focussed regulation. I hate to say it, but its obvious that quite a few haven't actually read the Code of Conduct 2011 that they complain about. If they had they wouldn't be making the basic errors in client care that they do. Those that take regulation on board as a matter of course move on quickly and use it to make their businesses better.
Regulation, taxes and death. My advice? Lawfully minimise the effect of all three.
Certainly an interesting take
Certainly an interesting take on things.
However, let us consider that the members are clients of the LS and the SRA. Would the excuse "the system didn't work" cut it? I reckon the client would be bloody furious, demand money off, complain etc.
Well, we can't get money off, but we can complain and we can expect, reasoably I think, that the standards applied to us are applied to the SRA-but they aren't are they?
That being the case we can try to change the system-and I think we'rs actually getting somewhere. For the President to actually take notice means someone's getting worried. Now I appreciate it's probably just about the nice little earner they're on-but thats the best way to go.
I'm pleased your clients are happy with the over-regulation-most solicitors are not. And we are trying to minimise them-by getting rid of the nonsense ones.
Error in Paragraph 3 of above post
...new system for the issue of practice management systems was criticised...
Should of course read ...new system for the issue of practising certificates was criticised...
Actually all of what you say
Actually all of what you say is obvious.
Generalizations are wrong including this one.
You make generalizations about solictors.
May I suggest that it is not up to you to tell us solicitors when you think the time time to take a deep breath about the practising certificate debacle - as you put it - is nigh you do not pay anything towards the SRA or the Law Society's costs.
I am peronally proud of the Law Society but as one member of it I can still try and be a candid friend to my and fellow solicitors professional body
Actually we'll decide and debate but thanks for your input
Actually by learning from history that is how mistakes are avoided in the future.
Come on-give the guy a break!
Come on-give the guy a break! He has just given us his point of view-and no, we don't agree with it but jump on the LS not him.
hi
Not in favour of bashing the LS for the sake of it Sorry..
You did not give much of a break in your response to his comments if you re read your comments !
Oh, there's plenty to bash
Oh, there's plenty to bash the LS about without it just being for the sake of it.........
And yeh, fair point!
Well done LS Gazette
Let's give a positive vote to the LS Gazette which is enabling this debate which the powers that be can read and they can get an idea of opinions.
Also full marks to Des Hudson who does a good job in promoting solicitors as the LS's Chief Executive.
Some questions need to be answered as we have asked above by parts of the SRA/ LS and there are many decent people at these organizations.
So there are positives but let's also deal with solving the negatives !
Christopher Gough is
Christopher Gough is perfectly polite in his comment and I will be courteous in my response
My dear fellow you are completely wrong!
Professionals are in the law to act ethically, in pursuit of the objective of looking after the best interests of their clients. They are there to promote the very idea of being a professional both in a public and private context
They are not in the law to tick boxes, hit production targets, be interrogated by a supposed professional friendly regulator,spend hours filling out forms, draw up compliance plans, create checklists and pay bungs conflicting with their primary ethical ethos.
As professionals solicitors should be at the cutting edge of challenging vested interests when it is a threat to society or the individual.
My firm some years ago adopted wholeheartedly the Legal Aid Franchise and we were the first firm in the area to be awarded the sought after (at that time) kitemark.
Despite appraisals, external audits, business plans, the kitemark etc, having the franchise did not result in a single extra client being generated, but did involve scores of hours being spent in developing all the systems required to achieve the kitemark.
Subsequently we were the first firm from FLUG to abandon the scheme because costs were being driven down by the Legal Aid Body at the time and then firms started to be edged out with fewer and fewer firms being permitted to act in LA cases so that eventually only a few firms handled Legal aid matters.
Does all this sound familiar?
It is interesting to look at the web sites of American Law Associations with their emphasis on modern professionalism to see how wrong the law society is in its current approach
SRA and Regulation
I think that this is a very interesting debate.
One of Nigelemesis comments is, I think, very telling. He says "Professionals are in the law to act ethically, in pursuit of the objective of looking after the best interests of their clients. They are there to promote the very idea of being a professional both in a public and private context."
All true but 'taken as read'.
He goes on - "They are not in the law to tick boxes, hit production targets, be interrogated by a supposed professional friendly regulator,spend hours filling out forms, draw up compliance plans, create checklists and pay bungs conflicting with their primary ethical ethos."
Those that are 'in the law' and accomplish the above tasks with ease are in my view, running the the most efficient and profitable businesses.
Some of the most efficient businesses I see these days are practices carrying out volume criminal work for the Legal Services Commission. Many solicitors will say that 'it can't be made to work' because of low remuneration rates etc. But do you know, some do it spectacularly well; they are not taking home 'wheelbarrows of gold bricks' at the end of the day however. And it may be that very few practices should be allowed to do that kind of work because as it is publicly-funded. It should only be carried out by the best business managers. Many of those practices have solicitors with higher rights of audience who as a matter of course carry out Crown Court trials - counsel not instructed.
Perhaps solicitors' training should shift emphasis? Part law, part MBA?