The SRA's plans to change the qualified lawyers transfer test could be detrimental to the UK legal sector, warns Nigel Savage


The debate over how easily foreign lawyers should be allowed to re-qualify in England and Wales is fraught with social, political and commercial complexities. Nothing illustrates this better than the recent controversy sparked by the Solicitors Regulation Authority (SRA) over its apparent desire to introduce changes to the existing guidance on the qualified lawyers transfer test (QLTT).



The problem as the SRA might see it is that successive regimes at the Law Society have allowed the QLTT to be used as a tool to attract overseas lawyers to the City. Such a system has been a boon to the global giants, which in turn has contributed to the success of English law in the global legal services market. The SRA has launched a direct attack on the system, risking claims of indirect racial discrimination, putting the government at risk of being accused of breaching our World Trade Organisation commitments, and undermining valuable lobbying efforts by both Whitehall and the Law Society to convince the Indian authorities to loosen that country's practice rights regime.



Is this position of indirect discrimination one that the SRA wants to adopt, at a time when the profession and those who represent and regulate it are seeking to consign to the dustbin of history the perception that the practice of the law is a white-man's club?



Indeed, for the City and the mega-global law firms the proposals are bad news, especially at a time when legal services minister Bridget Prentice is soon to travel to India on a lobbying mission to persuade the Indian authorities to loosen their practice restrictions on overseas law firms. Potentially discriminating against Indian lawyers who would like to qualify in England and Wales will send the worst of messages.



The authority's plans will also be detrimental to UK plc. Discouraging young overseas lawyers from re-qualifying as English/Welsh solicitors will make them less inclined to use English law in their deals. We cannot underestimate the influence that being admitted as a solicitor in England and Wales has had on the shape of the global legal services market. In the present climate, when the City is reeling from the impact of various global influences, it is not in our best interests to exacerbate the situation. Indeed, it could give rise to the possibility that the global recruitment, training and development hub for young lawyers may move to centres with a more receptive environment, such as Dubai in the United Arab Emirates.



We should be proud of having adopted a liberal approach to the ebb and flow of international legal expertise. We rightly boast that London is home to many of the best foreign-qualified lawyers in the world - many of whom may re-qualify as solicitors. We use this fact in countless meetings with the American Bar Association, where we berate our US counterparts for the protectionist approach of key international jurisdictions such as New York, Washington DC and California.



I accept that our liberal attitude must be weighed against the need to safeguard standards and protect the public. SRA chairman Peter Williamson suggested recently in the Gazette that the re-qualifying provisions need a comprehensive review. I agree. Nobody in this debate wants to allow badly trained lawyers to re-qualify here by simply ticking a few boxes, then to be let loose in our high streets. It might, however, be a good idea to take the regulatory lead from the legal services legislation and focus on the greater regulation of reserved activity - an area of law that few overseas lawyers are engaged in.



The SRA's piecemeal approach to regulation is creating uncertainty and potentially damaging. We need a more strategic approach to regulation of the legal services market.



Nigel Savage is chief executive of The College of Law