As announced in the Gazette, the Law Society has voted to support the Solicitors Regulation Authority's (SRA) application to the Legal Services Board for approval as a licensor of alternative business structures.

In doing so the Law Society demonstrated an element of the leadership that any representative body must offer.

There should be no surprise that the SRA should seek to protect and enhance its role as a regulator. It is, after all, what it does!

To fail to do so in circumstances where there is a longstanding political will for alternative business structures would have limited the opportunities for the SRA.

This would leave the field open for the Legal Services Board (LSB) to licence directly or some other ABS regulator to come into existence.

It has been said by some representing a would-be ABS that if no fit regulator existed they would encourage one to come forward.

Providing the best opportunity for a single regulator to balance regulation across the broad spectrum of legal practice/service providers shows good business sense from the SRA- something that capitalises on a strength developed by the Law Society over many years.

The legal profession has long represented wholly disparate business models from small one-man bands through to broadly-based local, national, regional, West End, silver circle, magic circle and global law firms.

These have been regulated by a single regulator requiring them to adhere to principles of professional practice.

The response from many - that ABS is an anathema which the SRA should have nothing to do with - was always predictable.

The cacophony that could be anticipated to follow any support for the SRA's application appears to have caused the representative Law Society to consider long and hard before declaring its support.

However, support it must, recognising that many solicitors have well advanced plans to own or promote ABS.

Therefore, to fail to make application to licence would have left the Law Society/SRA unable either to licence or represent such bodies.

The writing has been on the wall for a very long time.

The time for protest and name calling passed long ago. ABS' are as good as a reality and many will be promoted by existing law firms taking steps to take advantage of the opportunities that they see flowing from the different funding, ownership and remuneration models that go with it.

There is no reason why those who promote ABS should be regarded or characterised as either unprofessional or untrustworthy.

There is professionalism in business as there is in the management of a law firm.

That the competent management of our firms should be one of the mandatory principles of outcomes-focused regulation, both demonstrates the point and may suggest that some lawyers have fallen short.

To do so is damaging to client interest and the standing of the profession generally.

It is also correct to be concerned that the reputation of solicitors will be damaged by any failure of ABS, in the way that we so often are by some disreputable will writers who the general public believe to be legally qualified solicitors.

We should benefit from the SRA taking on the role of licensing ABS.

It is of course important that it continues to develop competencies to understand and regulate legal service providers.

The signs are that it is endeavouring to do so, seeking to better understand the work of City firms and their clients as well as larger firms and those providing services in volume (in their time also regarded with suspicion by some parts of the profession).

Frankly, the profession should be engaging with the SRA and the Legal Services Board.

In so doing it stands the best chance of informing what is required to deliver the outcomes desired by outcomes-focused regulation.

The Law Society is doing this and it is right that the SRA should seek to regulate ABS.

Not all promoters of ABS will choose regulation through the SRA, but if they come within the broad remit of the solicitors' profession, they will have to measure up to the prescribed standards.

To stand on the sidelines shouting does not alter the inevitable outcome but does mean that we as a profession would be increasingly disenfranchised.

In short, well done to the Law Society for having the guts to get on with it.

It will need more of the same if it is to square the awkward circle of representing both those who would promote ABS as well as those who are inevitably adversely affected by an increasingly competitive marketplace, some aspects of which will no doubt be blamed on ABS.

The fact is reforms and developments date back many years – look to the competition authorities report describing restrictive practices in the provision of professional services.

We now see the active implementation of changes long required by parliament.

There is no reason why able lawyers, practicing to the highest professional standards should be overtaken by these events.

The sadness is that too many are protesting against change, rather than using their excellent intellects to analyse and pick an advantageous route through it.

There are opportunities for those who make the best of them and the Law Society was right to lead the way.

Robert Bourns is Senior Partner at national law firm TLT.