Chancery Lane takes stake in OFR support provider
The Law Society has taken an equity stake in a company that provides support to legal firms on complying with outcomes-focused regulation (OFR).
Chancery Lane says the agreement with Riliance, which has developed an online support tool for compliance officers for finance and administration, and legal practice, will bolster its Risk and Compliance Service and Lexcel practice management standard. The cost and size of the shareholding have not been disclosed.
Desmond Hudson, chief executive, said it is a new departure for Chancery Lane to take a stake in an external service provider, rather than form a commercial partnership. He explained: ‘From January 2013 the responsibilities of COLPs and COFAs, under OFR, will take full effect. While some solicitors firms have developed bespoke support tools, not all firms will have the resources to do this on their own.
‘The Riliance online support product has been developed by experienced solicitors, with considerable expertise in compliance. It has already proven to be an effective tool, with good feedback from customers.’
Hudson explained that the software delivers a series of workflow practices to ensure compliance with OFR and, just as importantly, the ability to demonstrate compliance to regulators. ‘Our stake in the company and marketing support will help Riliance to develop its product and service to solicitors more speedily,’ he added.
‘The society will improve the support provided to our members by packaging the Riliance software with our other products. Members will benefit from any increase in the company's value.’
Hudson said there will in future be a ‘demonstrable difference in price’ for the service between Lexcel-accredited firms and members of the Risk and Compliance Service, and those who are not members of either.
Mark Gidge, chief executive of Riliance said: ‘We are delighted to have the Law Society as our partner and look forward to working alongside them. The strength of the Riliance product combined with the Society's expertise in this area will ensure the availability to members of a first-class risk and compliance product suite that will significantly aid firms in becoming and remaining compliant.’
Comments
Here it comes
CQS question11b) Does your firm use Riliance to demonstrate you are compliant?
PII question 248f) Does your firm use Riliance to demonstrate you are compliant?
Am I being cynical or is this going to be another unnecessary expense for hard pressed High street firms whilst the LS becomes more and more of a Plc rather than a representative body?
So trading links are being
So trading links are being established compromising the independence of the Law Society if it ever wanted to abandon or refine its approach to the whole concept of outcomes based regulation.
The cries of its members will be drowned out by the sound of celebrations at the Executive driving the profession further away from an ethical landscape and towards the abyss of a profession treated with contempt by all and sundry.
Is this really happening?
I think I must be in one of my own nightmares
Inappropriate
Why have the cost and size of the shareholding not been disclosed? Presumably, the stake was purchased using money provided by solicitors and the potential purchase was discussed during Law Society meetings, of which there must be minutes. Why are members of the profession not permitted to know how much the Society paid and what it got for its (our?) money?
This is Cleary Wrong
How can this be a correct and credible step for the Law Society? This is not appropriate.
Still at least they will make a bob or two out of the compliance hell that this profession is now subjected to. The level of 'investment' should be disclosed forthwith.
PS from Mr Appleyard
I wonder who 'A Gazette reporter' is?
Law Society equity stake in Riliance - article 09 October 2012
I have sent a request direct to the Law Society for full details of the cost and size of the equity holding in Riliance. As a Member of the Society, and in light of the Society's Code of Practice in relation to Freedom of Information, I am sure it will disclose all details immediately - and as a matter of 'transparency'! However, I was not aware that we (as Members) had now decided to add commercial enterprise to the existing regulatory and representative roles the Society is attempting to perform. I would like to see the Riliance accounts, to ascertain the wisdom of this particular investment!
Accounts
Companies House shows that Riliance Software Ltd is a small company and is therefore exempt from filing detailed accounts. Presumably, there is something in the Society's Royal Charter/Regulations which mean that buying shares in companies is intra vires. But it does seem remarkable for the Society (i) to invest in a business whose financial imperatives may not be consistent with the Society's representative function and (ii) not to disclose how much it paid and what it acquired. How can the Society now discuss (or make submssion in relation to) OFR without declaring (to itself and its members) that it has a financial interest in a company which makes money out of software which depends on the existence of OFR?
The press release on the Riliance website does not add much:
http://www.riliance.co.uk/riliance-in-the-press/tls-press-release/
vires
Is the Law Society out of control ?
Council and the Chief Executive
I view this development with the utmost concern
This brings concerns about what is happening to the management of the Law Society to a whole new level
It also displays poor judgement
Will the Chief executive please explain why he or the Council thinks this decision is in the best interests of the profession?
I doubt they will read this.
I doubt they will bother to read this so perhaps a formal request in writing is required from members.
Time for a REAL Representative Body
Yet another example of how Hudson does whatever he wants without any thought of the solicitors he is supposed to represent.
Why are we not given FULL details of this deal???
Who made the decision???
Why were we members not consulted???
Like many solicitors across the country I feel the time for a new representative body is long overdue and I will be raising this issue when I meet Des Hudson and Lucy Scott-Moncrief this week. I have been contacted by a surprisingly high number of solicitors from across the country all calling for the formation of a new representative body that will do just that.........REPRESENT US!!!!!
The time to act is NOW!!!
What they should rember is the old saying "from little acorns............."
All that is needed is enough solicitors to join together in order to generate the right publicity.
Stop moaning and act NOW!!!
Real Law Society
Please support Steve Bennett
The time for nuanced debate is over
It is time for members to reclaim their society or form a new body.
There is a tide in the affairs of men
Ultra Vires
Someone may wish to look at the following:-
1) http://www.legalservicesboard.org.uk/what_we_do/regulation/pdf/practising_fee_rules.pdf
2) http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2007/29/section/51
3) www.lawsociety.org.uk/about-us/documents/royal-charters/
I for one can not see that the Law Society has power to operate a general commercial company (which is what the Arts of Assn of the company they have bought provide for). Neither can I see that it can invest in companies (if they argue that the purpose is investment, i.e. to increase the value of their reserves).
Neither under items 1) or 2) above does there appear to be any power to the Society to use practising certificate money to purchase commercial companies whose object is to sell services to solicitors (predicated upon the view that those solicitors need those services).
Questions need to be answered - now.
One on the major players in
One on the major players in Riliance is, Mr Rogers of LHS in Manchester and a member of the council of Manchester Law Society.
http://www.lhs-solicitors.com/people/brian-rogers.aspx
I have had the sales pitch from RiLiance and I must say I was far from impressed and while I can understand that selling a system at £150 per month makes good business sense (and we all need to make a living) I cannot see how the system provides anything meaningful and or will actually prevent dysfunctional practices or untoward outcomes.
I am frankly astounded that the Law Society have clearly concluded that there is no conflict of interests here and or that their stakes provides a tacit inducement to firms to purchase the product (and thereby insulate themselves from any action on the grounds that they are using an 'approved' system).
If the Law Society wanted to assist the profession and deliver services to members, why is not not developing a robust and effective tool or suite of services to be provided free of charge?
Are we to be told, who approached whom?
Whehter alternative services / companies were considered?
Whether there was active consideration of removing conflicts from the discussions as to the deal?
Who acted on the sale / purchase?
Murky waters indeed.
Critics
I do not have an interest in riliance, I am not a customer or a stakeholder. I am an in-house solicitor and I buy a lot of other solicitors work. Generally I am totally frustrated at the professions lack of compliance with OFR and lack of acceptance that it is generally failing to meet levels of service that most other professions deliver and expect.
The Law Society is there to represent its members.
Many of its members completely fail to comply with OFR or take any real notice of the serious obligations placed upon them. Read Susskind and accept the world has changed.
The Law Society do not have the skills internally and do not have the ability to acquire the people that might build something that helps members stay compliant but they have an obligation to help firms do so.
Why then shouldn't the Law Society buy in those skills to help solicitors demonstrate compliance and deliver the appropriate outcomes to customers. Especially in a small entrepreneurial business with some good ideas.
Solicitors using this product are more likely to survive than those that don't.
The Law Society is moving with the times and recognising that what has gone on in the past is unacceptable. I personally think if this raises awareness of modern outcome focused regulation in firms what is the issue? The Law Society by taking a stake in this business is helping solicitors achieve the right outcomes for their clients.
moving with the times
Because moving with the times does not mean an abandonment of the best features of professionalism.
It does not mean suffocating lawyers with heavy additional costs when margins are so pitifully thin.
It does not mean damaging the reputation of solicitors to such an extent that their self esteem is at an all time low.
I have acted for corporate clients big and small for over three decades and they come to because of my professionalism not because they have heard that I am obsessed with OFR!
Clearly you enjoy being a legal services salesman but don't expect the rest of us to think like you.
garrowslaw
Garrowslaw
I am encouraging solicitors to re-engage with professionalism rather than continue to abandon it and I am saluting the Law Society for trying to help. I do not accept that the general level of professionalism by solicitors is acceptable. Try being a buyer of legal services and you`ll find out.
The Law Society haven't brought OFR on us, the Law Society aren't damaging the reputation of solicitors. We are doing it ourselves by our own bad behaviour and outcomes. If you think that being in the law isn't about the correct outcomes for the client you shouldn't be in the legal sector because you are a liability.
Solicitors have to recognise we are not longer in 1950's Britain. We are accountable and have to demonstrate our accountability and there is nothing unreasonable about that. All the Law Society are doing with this investment is helping us do that.
Finally, if you cant make money in this market leave it to those that can and do. If the pressure to cut corners and not deal with appropriate regulation leaves you feeling oppressed you should stop trading before you make a fundamental error for your clients.
Oppression
Oh dear
Have I struck a raw nerve?
It is interesting to note that those legal services tradesmen like you which have your outlook on the law always resort to the "Luddite Slur"
Is your central proposition then if you don't surrender your professionalism you are a luddite?
It is our professionalism which must continue to evolve. The shift in emphasis to consumerism/commercialism has done untold damage to the standing of solicitors. This was of course one of the aims of the 2007 Act.
The thinking behind the 2007 Act was dangerous and muddled.
Interestingly some of the worst firms I have ever encountered have had all sorts of kitemarks but their standard of work was appalling.
I am very busy but like many other solicitors I am concerned that the Law Society's messianic zeal in enforcing stupid outcomes based rules is creating the conditions for the slow death of the profession
If you are content with your lot that is fine, but you are out of step with no less a figure than the Past President of the American Bar and not to mention quite a few lawyers I speak with.
Bespoke support tools
If lawyers need a computerised "bespoke support tool" to comply with regulatory obligations, there is either something wrong with those regulations or with the intelligence of the profession. No "bespoke support tool" - or any number of "kitemarks" - is going to make you a competent lawyer, because such things only amount to box-ticking: they do not measure competence, professionalism or integrity.
In any event, the debate is not about the need for tools, but about the lawfulness/wisdom of investing the profession's money in a limited company whose commercial imperatives may not fit with the representative obligations of the Society. Which "bespoke support tool" did the Society run that decision through before going ahead with the equity investment?