Discussion continues on the meaning of outcomes-focused regulation, the implementation of the now not-so-new Handbook and the attitude of the SRA to its enforcement.

Much of this concerns the retrospective justification of procedures and, in the context of entity-based regulation, whether a breach that is not demonstrated to a standard to justify disciplinary procedures against any individual, may nonetheless support action against the firm.

The risks from a review after the event are clear. A client complaint, assuming it is not entirely without merit, will not have been the intended outcome and therefore it is easy for those looking back through the history of dealings to suggest an inadequacy in the firm's procedures. There is an understandable anxiety that the credibility of either the SRA or OFR will be undermined by a response that is not sufficiently nuanced to take account of the complexities of a transaction or matter, and the sophistication and resources of the client or complainant.

For another discussion perhaps, but it is my observation that the SRA is keen to engage with the profession, to learn and understand the most appropriate indicators for any particular type or area of practice.

While there is understandable focus on what OFR has changed, there is less on those aspects of conduct that appear unchanged.

It is a principle of practice that we act with integrity - nothing new or challenging in this. The principle runs through the handbook when considering dealings with clients, the courts and our regulator, with repeated references to ‘your clients and others’.

In practice, ‘others’ must include each other, in terms of employees and partners. However, chapter 7 of the Handbook, dealing with the ‘management of your business’, covers dealings with each other only by the requirement to have a ‘clear and effective governance structure’, with indicative behaviours that include the safe-keeping of documents and assets entrusted to the firm, controlling budgets, expenditure and cashflow, identifying and monitoring financial, operational and business continuity risks, including complaints and making arrangements for the continuation of your practice in the event of holiday or sickness.

All straightforward and sensible stuff - not to say, obvious.

Within these behaviours could be procedures to monitor and support integrity in dealings between partners or principals. Some might think this requires greater emphasis.

Many are excited by the opportunities for ABS in the further development of their practices. Others are apprehensive or have yet to see the benefit or relevance to their firm (large or small).

Some are concerned for the fitness of those who may become involved in the ownership of a firm or legal service provider, or the issues that may arise on changes in ownership or the exit of a particular investor. Some international competitors seek to suggest these changes go both to the integrity and independence of our profession.

However, ‘new entrants’ and many existing solicitor firms are quite properly investigating the best corporate structures to put in place, beneath or around their existing practice to make the most of opportunities, deal appropriately with regulatory issues that might arise from practising in different jurisdictions or by use of different business models, and providing the opportunity to share ownership or attract capital from third parties.

I am clear that ABS are not, as some appear to suggest, of themselves a bad thing and that solicitors do not become less trustworthy or professional by virtue of their decision to practice through an ABS. ABS are and will remain just one of a range of structures that may be used by solicitors (and others) to provide legal services.

Change in ownership is nothing new, a constant, through the admission and retirement of partners and the merger and acquisition of firms.

However the use of ABS, with the opportunity for long- and shorter-term incentives, the involvement of partners in different parts of the practice, reflecting themselves in structurally different legal entities and differing participation in ownership and profit centres, underlines the need for confidence that all are acting with integrity, beyond procedures to monitor risk.

Some put their faith in the work of the compliance officer for finance and administration (COFA) and compliance officer for legal practice (COLP). These are important positions, focused on compliance with the SRA Handbook, Solicitors' Accounts Rules and others (in passing I am not convinced that the role of COLP must be the preserve of a solicitor). However, it is inevitable that COLP and COFAs will be a part of the firm's management and therefore focused on delivering short- and long-term objectives.

While partners and principals owe each other duties, reinforced by the terms of most partnership, member or investor agreements, some may look for greater reassurance.

In short, have we reached a point where we should expect a firm or legal service provider of any significant size to put in place an audit or governance and oversight committee. Separate from management it would scrutinise all aspects of the management of the business, reviewing reports from auditors, COLP, COFA, declarations of interest, with a brief to ensure that the owners as a whole could be satisfied that not only are the risks of practice managed but all dealings are transparent, there is are no secret profits or profit shares, and integrity is demonstrated.

A shareholder group should expect nothing less, and it is unlikely partners’ meetings, conferences or other lines of communication can deliver the levels of scrutiny required to provide real assurance.

Some may not agree!

Robert Bourns is senior partner at national law firm TLT