Lord Hunt’s interim report was delivered earlier this month, immediately ahead of the launch of his roadshows across England and Wales.

I have no doubt that the review will inform everyone with an interest in what we do and I trust it will assist in ensuring that the future approach to regulation will have the respect of the regulated community.

It is good to note the welcome given to so many facets of Nick Smedley's report, for although its focus is on corporate firms, the sense I gain from feedback so far is that many of his recommendations resonate with solicitors across our diverse and complex profession.

In my judgement, there is a clear desire for efficient, proportionate and empathetic regulation. In that sense I think it is possible to see now some clear signposts for the Solicitors Regulation Authority to follow, and that there is an urgency to this which will require it to make choices, to prioritise, and to maintain a responsible budget in these difficult times.

Setting the sceneIn his report Lord Hunt refers to the Law Society’s twin pillars of interest in representation and regulation. In doing so he sets the scene for his review of the substance of regulation.

On structure, the Legal Services Act requires, within the bounds of what is reasonably practicable, that the Law Society, as approved regulator, separates representation from regulation. In fact, it did this three years before the act hit the statute book and the SRA is entirely independent in its function of rule-making, investigation of complaints and, where appropriate, prosecution and punishment of breach where reference to the Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal is not thought appropriate. The Legal Services Board has to make final rules governing separation, but to my mind it is real now, and the focus rightly turns to substance.

Core entry standards and the regulation and oversight of conduct are clearly matters for the SRA. For the Law Society, the challenge for the future is that of leading and keeping together a cohesive and distinct profession, one recognised as special, and one clearly distinguishable from the increasing cohort of so-called legal advisors. In this we have common cause with the bar and Institute of Legal Executives.

There is a view that cheap necessarily equals value, and that professional standards are not always essential to the conduct of legal business. I do not agree with either proposition. Being as efficient as possible means value and cost can be, and must be, minimised whenever possible by ensuring that the right skills are deployed to meet the problem in view. This is the professional approach, the business approach.

OverreactionWhether popular as a concept at present or not, I believe that solicitors are part of the weave of the fabric of society. In penning these words, I paused and wondered if I was going over the top. I do not think so. From the high street to the City in whatever they do and because of their training, they bring, in dealing with the affairs of every client they represent, the rule of law, the silver thread which runs through society, invisible but of inestimable value.

In supporting solicitors who are daily meeting the challenges of recession, of daily practice, of lack of public funding and the rest, there is an imperative need to continue the improvement in services, to reach out to regional and local law societies, and to firms of whatever size and interest.

But above all, in representing solicitors, the Law Society must maintain the difference, drive up professional standards, and convince those who direct regulation that the empathetic approach is right and will secure world-class regulation of a world-class profession.

May I urge everyone who can attend Lord Hunt’s roadshows to do so and make a vital contribution to his independent review of the substance of the regulation of our profession.

Robert Heslett is vice-president of the Law Society