Report comment

Please fill in the form to report an unsuitable comment. Please state which comment is of concern and why. It will be sent to our moderator for review.

Comment

Her blog.....gaaaah! What a load of utter waffle. Frightening that such people are in these positions of authority. Very simple principles seemingly cannot be understood by them.

Just a small extract:

"It has been said that there is a fundamental clash of values between professionalism and market forces – that the focus on price threatens quality standards, or profit is undermining principle. These concerns are overstated and ignore the role of regulation to manage these and other risks. However, for the professions, there is no point hankering after a return to some golden age; instead they need to find ways of redefining and/or reasserting professional values in the modern world. Or as Richard puts it, professionalism is precarious but it’s also adaptable."

She seems to think, bafflingly, that the mere existence of regulation means that reductions in price won't affect the quality or professionalism of service. Unless you are currently very inefficient and /or overcharging, then that is nonsense.

I had a very dumb partner who thought similarly; his idea was to offer cut price fixed fees to attract clients. Then, when he realised we would not break even if the job was done well and thoroughly, he preferred to cut corners and work sloppily. Result, pissed off clients and bad reputation and risk of of breach of regulatory rules. It just wasn't good service, the kind of service that a true PROFESSIONAL would be compelled through an inherent sense of duty to provide. Like me. But I can't do it on a shoestring. I need to pay enough knowledgable staff to process the work accurately and promptly, and to ensure regulatory requirements are met. Did you get that Davies? Being able to comply with regulation takes time and costs money!

Bar a minority of bad eggs, my experience is that for someone to have a professional mentality comes from working hard to acquire a demanding professional qualification, during which time the professional mentality, ie putting your client above your own interests, is instilled. How anything less can be thought better for 'consumers' is puzzling.

I realise she is thinking that unqualified people could potentially provide the same high standard of service. Well, that may be right if they are not subjected to the same level of rigorous regulation that we are but elsewhere on her blog she indicates they should be, and that's about the only thing I agree with her on! However, she needs to explain how that would then make it any cheaper for consumers, unless she is thinking that unqualified people will charge less. Not sure how if they have to have the same level of insurance etc. They may charge less to grab market share but then the thing they will lack is the very thing clients need; real knowledge and experience.

The idea that Mcakenzie friends etc can provide this is nonsense. The voluntary sector only works because it is heavily supported by pro bono services of qualified professionals. And that only goes so far. The perpetuation of the myth that there is a large amount of simple process legal work and form filling etc is dangerous. Any part that can be done by less expensive staff already is, and the saving passed on to the client, as we already compete in the market. Opening the playing field to cowboys looking to make profit on low price, high volume work, is hardly going to protect the consumer, which I thought was her objective.

In the golden age she she refers to, clients could easily tell the wheat from the chaff by simply checking someone was a qualified solicitor. Market forces did the rest. Now, they have been confused by all the 'lawyers' and 'legal services' out there that Davies praises. It just widens the pool for bad eggs, and potentially with no redress. Those in that wider pool who may provide a decent service won't be able to do it any cheaper than most solicitors do.

Your details

Cancel