Nally: devil lies in the detail Sir David Clementi has quickened the pace of debate on how the Law Society should regulate and represent the profession, argues Ed Nally


I rather like being the President of the Law Society – but then who wouldn’t? The opportunity to lead the solicitors’ profession is an immense privilege, even if it is only for a brief period.


When I formally took the chain of office at the Law Society’s annual general meeting last month, many conveyed to me their good wishes, coupled with the accurate observation that we have an extremely challenging year ahead. This is undoubtedly true, but wouldn’t life be dull if things were otherwise?


As I embark on my year as president, my initial view is that we need to quicken the pace of change within the Law Society and the profession itself. This is no time for procrastination. My first personal challenge will be to ensure that the Law Society Council’s vision for the future of the profession becomes a reality.


Earlier this year, the council decided – correctly, in my view – that a greater separation between our regulatory and representation roles ought to be created. Identifying how to do that swiftly and credibly will be our first task. The next step will be to ensure that we remain focused on the task at hand and maintain the momentum to fulfil what we set out to achieve.


I recognise that the potential exists for this to be a difficult journey at times, but that is no reason to avoid the challenges ahead. The opportunities for us all to side-step difficult issues are immense, but I am determined that the Society will not fall into that trap. We need to tackle the issues head-on and without delay.


The fact that the Law Society and a large number of its key stakeholders plumped for model B or B+ in their responses to Sir David Clementi’s consultation paper on the future of regulation for the legal profession signals a genuine momentum of support for a model of regulation with a high degree of professional involvement. Although this is certainly a positive sign, simply convincing ourselves is not enough. We cannot merely assert the right of a profession to regulate itself without a compelling vision of the benefits that it will bring to consumers and the broader public interest. A vision that we believe in, and do not merely adopt as a self-defence mechanism against the threat of enforced change.


So by the time Sir David starts to draft his recommendations to the government, the Law Society will need to have signposted clearly to him how it sees itself fitting into the brave new world that might follow. If we deal with that, then we have a real chance of using the catalyst of Sir David’s review to bring about greater long-term benefits. We live in a society that is impatient. So too is our own profession and the clients and stakeholders who come into contact with us. We need to move beyond principle into active progress, and we need to do it now.


The models of regulation that Sir David sets out are broad constructs, and the devil lies in the detail. I want to encourage the Law Society Council to look at that detail and to tackle the demon within. The best way forward in my view is not to ponder at length on the institutional future of the Society, but to concentrate instead on the fundamental principles of regulation and on how new regulatory models and modes of practice might work best for the public and the profession.


And what about the vexed question of the Law Society’s dual regulatory and representational functions? I have already said that I consider that a jaded analysis of what the Society has done well or badly in the past is both a waste of the profession’s time and a waste of the Society’s resources. It is also fantastically self-indulgent. Shouldn’t we be bold and look at an outline of the best possible vision for representation, working up the detail from that premise, rather than from within the constraints of our current structure?


Let me also mention timing. Presidents come and presidents go, and my own time in the spotlight will no doubt pass in the blink of an eye. Therefore, I am prepared to face the prospect that not everything will be completed within the year and indeed the vision that I have may take a few years to come to an evolving conclusion.


But unless we start somewhere we will never make progress. One thing I am confident of is that if we aim for mediocrity then we will surely achieve it. I am determined not to let that happen while I am president. So let’s start by identifying the most effective way of separating our regulatory and representation roles, in a way that appeals both to the profession and to our stakeholders.


Sir David has encouraged the profession to think about itself and the way it is governed with more momentum than has been around in years. This can only be a good thing. There is also a heightened awareness of the reach of the Law Society as the regulatory and representational body and a real desire to engage with the Society in the development of a new vision. It would be a tragedy if we wasted the opportunity to seize the moment.



Ed Nally is the Law Society President