Those charged with promoting regulatory change – the government, the Legal Services Board, the Solicitors Regulation Authority and other regulators - are clear that access to justice is not only a primary regulatory objective but also a moral/social imperative.

The preacher at a recent service to mark the start of the legal year reminded the congregation of judges, magistrates, court officers and representatives from police and probation services that a compassionate and just society provides and maintains a system of justice for its citizens. Such a system is accessible and extends beyond the application of the letter of the law to the application of the spirit of the law.

Long a fundamental for any civilised society, access to justice is a regulatory objective to be achieved by all who would be licensed to provide reserved legal services. The Legal Services Act places the Legal Services Board and other regulators under a duty not only to ensure that the regulated community provide access, but to ‘improve’ access to justice. In describing and comparing the relative significance of the regulatory objectives the Legal Services Board comments that ‘access to justice is a strong one’.

Although the goal is clear and common to all, there are strikingly different views within the sector as to how access may be provided. These differences can be the elephant in the room at discussions about the opportunities and objectives of legal reform, particularly in relation to regulatory changes, which will pave the way for alternative business structures (ABSs) and outcome focused regulation (OFR).

There is an assumption among some that access will be improved by better funding for private practices, often characterised as the network of high street practitioners. They argue that the network provides access to justice and must be protected. It does and perhaps it should. Others argue that all problems will be solved by the market, by means of ABSs.

The pressures on the high street and others, whether resulting from restrictions on legal aid, panel reviews, availability and the cost of professional indemnity insurance or withdrawal of bank support, are long term and now critical to their viability. Many dedicated and able practitioners are being confronted with extremely difficult decisions. In this context the encouragement of new entrants and the use of ABSs are unhelpful and unwelcome.

However, if the promotion of access to justice through high street practitioners is based on an assumption that nobody else can replicate, or more likely improve on the existing model, or alternatively that new entrants must be incapable of meeting professional standards, the argument will be lost.

The legal services market is transforming beyond all recognition. There is a strong political will that it should. As a profession, and as individual firms of whatever size, we have to review how we work so that we deliver in a way that the clients recognise as providing value. This requires innovation and focus on our clients, whether they are individuals, private corporations or institutions. If we don't, good practices will be overtaken by events and fail. A number have done so already.

The profession will mislead itself if it resists changes, such as the introduction of ABSs, on the basis that they will impact adversely on private practice and therefore access to justice. The ABS model need not be at odds with professional standards or the delivery of access to justice.

New entrants into the legal services market may bring with them new ideas and new ways of identifying and meeting client needs. With investment in technology, proper supervision of appropriately trained and qualified members of staff, they can provide geographical reach, work to consistent levels of service, and provide access at proportionate unit cost. Certainly the paymasters in legal expenses insurers and the legal aid commissioners believe so.

There are already examples of those who have invested large amounts in the use of IT and other systems relating to the supervision of those who are appropriately qualified to undertake defined work to prescribed levels of service at reduced cost. They do so while providing access either remotely or one on one basis during extended hours.

During his year in office, Paul Marsh, president, referred to the model being established by Co-operative Legal Services as one to which the profession as a whole should pay attention. In its interim report considering Access to Justice, in March 2010, the Law Society examined a number of practice models, including a law shop, representing a model requiring lower investment. This is not a case where one size or model will fit all client and work types. The debate focuses particularly on provision for those who are impecunious. It is assumed that in the corporate world, general counsel or others responsible for procurement are capable of obtaining access to justice at an acceptable price.

In its interim report, the Law Society asserts that ‘the cost of legal work is such that it is inevitable that there will be a substantial number of people who are unable to afford the risks of legal action’. It concludes that it is therefore ‘essential’ for the taxpayer to provide a safety net. The taxpayer already provides a safety net, but to respond by demanding that the current cost of legal work is such that the taxpayer must pick up the bill, will be seen to miss an opportunity to consider how access to justice can be provided and to the test any assumptions as to the cost at which it can be done.

The Legal Services Board must ‘promote competition in the provision of legal services’ – another regulatory objective. In its commentary, the Legal Service Board sees this as a ‘proactive and positive duty’, going on to say that ‘the legal sector has not faced the same competition pressures as many other markets’. It seems that the LSB expects a competitive market to test any assumptions about the cost of legal work.

A more positive response from the profession will be to welcome and exploit the opportunities that the new regulatory framework will provide. Practitioners are used to operating to professional standards that focus on serving the interests of the client and providing access to justice. As a profession, we have been spectacularly successful both within and beyond England and Wales, without some of the props offered to foster entrepreneurial skills in other parts of the economy. As a profession, we have proven that the majority are competent business people who operate to the highest professional standards.

We must continue to embrace change and make the most of the opportunities that flow from it.

We must not allow any objection to change to be characterised or perceived as an attempt to restrict competition. There will be important issues for discussion, for example around the beneficial ownership of ABSs, the independence of the provision and the justification for reserving certain legal activities at all (for another day), but there will also be many potential advantages for clients and opportunities for practitioners.

We have an opportunity and a need to continue to organise ourselves in our different practices, to identify what we do well, the clients we can best serve, our respective understanding and measurement of value and the cost of what we do, so that we take the best of what we have already established while making the very best of the changes the regulations permit. It will be sad if able lawyers, practising to the highest standards and motivated only by a desire to serve their clients best interests, are overtaken by events and market forces.

Robert Bourns is senior partner at national law firm TLT, and a former president of Bristol Law Society