It is time to look at what professionalism really means in the 21st century to law firms large and small, the Law Society's new President, Andrew Holroyd, tells Neil Rose


It is indirectly as a result of the Toxteth riots that Andrew Holroyd is now President of the Law Society.



In the wake of the riots of 1981, Liverpool Law Society wanted someone on its committee who worked in and understood the area. That person was Mr Holroyd, an immigration law specialist who later became president of the society before being persuaded to take over the seat for Merseyside on the national Law Society Council.



He then achieved a high profile on the council through chairing the training committee and then the standards board (as was). ‘[Becoming President] was really by chance rather than design,’ he reflects, ‘but obviously it’s a fantastic honour to do the job.’



There is clearly a contrast with his predecessor, Fiona Woolf, a City lawyer who specialised in energy law and made improving links with the big City firms a major priority of her year in office. Where Ms Woolf has a CBE for her work on electricity reforms, Mr Holroyd has one for services to publicly funded legal work.



But though Mr Holroyd, a partner at nine-partner legal aid practice Jackson & Canter, sees talking to medium and small law firms as one of his top tasks over the next year, that does not mean the City firms will be ignored. ‘Fiona’s work last year in visiting the top 100 was an extremely important step forward and it’s vital that we make sure that work continues.’



The 59-year-old, who is also a Methodist lay preacher, rejects the notion that the big firms are able to look after themselves and should not receive attention from Chancery Lane. ‘There is a sense that the large law firms don’t need our help in the same that the high street firms do,’ he says, ‘but actually when we scratched the surface, we found that the Law Society can add value in relation to issues such as quality of life. I believe we may have a similar role to play on some other corporate responsibility issues moving forward.



‘One of the issues I want to look at is what is professionalism in the 21st century. That is a question that needs to be asked at all ends of the profession. One of the strengths of the profession and its diversity is that each part can learn something from the other.’



There is an argument that a transactional lawyer at a magic circle firm scarcely needs to be a solicitor. Mr Holroyd responds: ‘You could argue that, but if you ask the major law firms, they will say they need to maintain their professional law firm ethos, and that actually has something to do with their role in society as well as the fact that they are financially successful.’



His intention to work on corporate responsibility and what it means for law firms will encompass issues such as pro bono, quality of life, the environment and diversity. ‘I was very heartened recently when one of the leaders of a big firm came up to me to say that, a year ago, he would have said the Law Society was pretty irrelevant to his business. But then we launched our “Great Quality of Life Debate” and diversity forum, and they had convinced him that we offer a lot to support firms like his.’



This work also links in with the launch of the Law Society’s Excellence Awards, which will be handed out in October and will celebrate innovation in the profession. The ceremony will also be a major platform for Mr Holroyd, who recently took the tough decision to cancel the Law Society’s annual conference. ‘I will get to make my conference speech in a variety of different venues,’ he says.



The new President says he has no problem going to talk to the leaders of the largest City firms, even though the reality of practice in Toxteth is worlds away. ‘I have conversations with people in the City about, for example, client care and find that in reality they face exactly the same problems that I do, even though I’m dealing with people who are the marginalised in society. They can be just as demanding as some big corporate clients.



‘It’s a question of managing their expectations – telling your clients what you’re going to do, when you’re going to do it, and how much it will cost. If you do that well, it doesn’t matter what sector of the profession you’re in. I trained with a commercial firm and if I’d stayed there, the way I developed my legal skills might not have been very different from the way they have done in another sector.’



For Mr Holroyd, commercialism and professionalism now go hand in hand, although he is keen to point to the core values in the new Solicitors Code of Conduct – upholding the rule of law, integrity, independence, confidentiality, good client service and upholding the reputation of the profession – as saying ‘everything you need to know about what lawyers should be like in the 21st century’. He is considering organising a series of debates about each of the core values and what threats they face.



And it is core value number one – upholding access to justice and the rule of law – that is at stake in the Law Society’s ‘Defending legal aid’ campaign, Mr Holroyd says.



‘This is absolutely at the heart of why we are lawyers. Redressing the balance of power between the powerful and powerless is central to the lawyer’s role, and if we get to the situation in this country where the powerless have no lawyers to go to, and the Law Society has stood by and let that happen, I believe we will have abdicated one of our principal responsibilities as a professional body.’



The government is taking huge risks, he insists, especially in relation to the criminal defence sector. Rather than encouraging consolidation in the market – making big firms bigger and bringing smaller firms together – ‘they risk these large firms being driven out of the market because the remuneration is insufficient’. What will be left will be smaller firms working out of back bedrooms.



‘We are at a crossroads and we have said very strongly to government that they need to think again. If they don’t, they are in serious danger of not only failing with their plans, but also achieving exactly the opposite result of what they intended.’



Of course, the Law Society cannot force the government to change tack. ‘What I can do is lobby the parliamentarians very hard. I can lobby ministers very hard. I can keep on talking to the Legal Services Commission. I can keep on trying to get the message out to the public that their legal services are in jeopardy. I will do all those things. We will continue to press the case to the government for a sustainable future for legal aid.’



He points to the legal aid campaign, as well as those on home information packs and personal injury process reform, as examples of the Law Society flexing its representational muscles in the wake of being freed from responsibility for regulation, and proving to solicitors that it can work effectively on their behalf. ‘Since we split regulation from representation, we have been able to focus on what it means to be an excellent representative body and I think we’ve made a very good start on that process. We’ve hired a very good chief executive, who’s got a good sense of how the profession should present itself and what the issues are that we should take forward.’



The personal injury debate is a good example of where the Society faces tensions as a representative body in meeting the needs of members who are on opposite sides of the same issue. Some defendant insurance lawyers, for example, would argue that the Society has too often taken the claimant side.



Mr Holroyd acknowledges the problem, and says ‘this is why, in a complex profession like this, the Law Society has to keep to the big issues. One of the ways of dealing with the complex interests of the profession is for the Law Society to work with special interest groups. It can often be more influential for them to propose the argument’.



This links closely to Chancery Lane’s relations with those specialist practitioner groups. Mr Holroyd thinks the regulation/ representation split has also been of benefit here, as the groups now see they have much to gain by engaging with the Society. ‘Our relationships have got a lot better now we’re perceived as doing an effective representational job.’



The separation of functions has helped focus the Society’s leaders on exactly where they want the organisation to go, he says. And like Solicitors Regulation Authority (SRA) chief executive Antony Townsend (see [2007] Gazette, 26 July, 22), he has been pleased with how the split has worked after some initial teething problems.



‘When we started off, there was a natural reaction for the separate parts to emphasise their own roles and their separateness. We are now more comfortable with our own different territories. It’s not been easy to separate the budget, and there is still work to do. However, through discussion we have been able to work through our problems and find solutions. There has been a lot of goodwill and I really think we can make this regime work.’



He says that, starting with a clean sheet of paper, it is unlikely that anyone would have come up with the current arrangement. ‘Yet it is one that I think can work and will work with co-operation and goodwill on all sides.’



Referral fees was the issue that convinced Mr Holroyd that separation was needed – ‘unfortunately, you had debates in council where it was pretty obvious who was arguing which side of the picture and there was a lot of self-interest in those contributions’. It is a ‘big step forward’ to have an independent body looking at the question.



As to the issue itself, Mr Holroyd believes the current referral fee rule ‘represents a reasonable balance of interests’, but he stresses the complexity involved, given the different drivers in each sector affected, such as personal injury and conveyancing. He adds: ‘But at the heart of this are those core values. Referral fees can be done very ethically whatever sector you are in and to the benefit of clients. They can also be done in a poor way and clients’ interests can be compromised. If we have solicitors who understand those core values and where the interests of clients lie, then referral fees can work.’



More generally, he observes that the Law Society’s high-level objectives so far as regulation is concerned are no different from the SRA’s, even though they may disagree about some of the details of the rules.



When it comes to the Legal Complaints Service (LCS), Mr Holroyd says there has been a ‘measurable improvement’ – he points to the significant drop in staff turnover, despite all the uncertainties surrounding the service, as a strong sign that the organisation is being well managed.



And yet Zahida Manzoor, in both her roles of Legal Services Ombudsman and Legal Services Complaints Commissioner, paints a less rosy picture. ‘If you look at the role of a regulator, it is always to encourage good performance. Do you expect a regulator always to give a clean bill of health? No, you don’t. You’d expect a regulator to point out where there are still problems. What is slightly disappointing, however, is that the commissioner could have given more credit for the improvements that have been made. It is essentially a good news story, but there is still more to do.’



The issue of miners’ compensation is never far away when complaints are discussed, and Mr Holroyd recognises the damage it has done to the profession’s reputation. ‘We have to deal with this situation and the LCS is doing so. I’m glad that the Law Society decided to make ex gratia payments [to miners whose solicitors have not yet paid awards made for inadequate professional service]. This is a class of clients who are vulnerable and by definition in ill health – we will make the payments while the Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal makes the final verdict on the case.’



Normally, he would not expect the LCS to go out and actively procure complaints – as it is currently doing in relation to miners – but in these particular circumstances, Mr Holroyd considers it a ‘proportionate response’.



But he adds: ‘I hope that the message has finally got through to MPs that we want those who have had difficulties with the system to receive their recompense. What isn’t understood and is very difficult to get over to the outside world is the intense complexity of the miners’ compensation situation, with our member firms faced by a bewildering complex set of differing circumstances.



‘Some firms, it appears, have behaved improperly and if so, the Law Society will speak out very strongly. But what you cannot say is that every firm has acted badly.’



MPs are also currently having their say on the profession as the Legal Services Bill passes through the Commons, and overall it is in a decent shape – although not as good as it was before the government overturned all of the Lords amendments, in Mr Holroyd’s view.



‘One crucial thing we need to keep in the Bill and that is the definition of light-touch regulation,’ he says. ‘We need to ensure that the legal services board can only step in if there is a real need to do so in the public interest.’ Another outstanding issue is that of the cost of the new system of regulation, and the government’s intention to pass it on entirely to the profession. This did not happen when similar regimes were introduced for the accountancy and healthcare professions, Mr Holroyd argues. ‘And why should the profession bear all the costs when some are currently borne by the government?’



The government’s insistence on the ‘iniquitous’ provision that solicitors working for the Government Legal Service ‘do not have to pay for the badge’ in the form of the practising certificate fee also raises his hackles. ‘That just shows the standards of the government – they want these high professional standards, but they themselves alone are exempt from paying for them.’



He may not have intended to be President, but Andrew Holroyd is clearly relishing the next year. ‘When you go round and see how much the Law Society of England and Wales is respected, you realise what an important role you have and what an honour it is to do it.’