An increasing diverse legal profession demands a regulatory approach that reflects that diversity.

There ought not to be controversy over the Law Society’s decision to set up an independent profession-wide review of whether the Solicitors Regulation Authority’s (SRA) ‘one size fits all’ approach is appropriate to all practice areas.

The open-minded approach of Lord Hunt of Wirral includes considering whether a more proportionate approach is necessary for the legal work regularly undertaken by major City and international law firms. This is of particular interest to me in my work on behalf of the City of London Law Society (CLLS) and its corporate members, which include the UK’s top 28 and a large number of the world’s top 10 law firms.

There are two reasons why the Law Society’s initiative should be widely welcomed. First, there should be a better understanding of the variety in legal practice, and the need for a regulatory approach that enables our City and international law firms to remain competitive worldwide, at a time when repairing the banking sector is vital. This need has not been sufficiently recognised by the SRA despite its reforming zeal in other – mainly restrictive – respects.

It was hoped that the SRA would consider the need for a proportionate and enabling regulatory hand for law firms that serve major and sophisticated corporate buyers of legal services through very aware legal departments. But there has been no real progress on this front, despite the comforting words of the former Lord Chancellor, Lord Falconer, and the public agreement of SRA chair Peter Williamson.

Corporate purchasers of legal services do not need the same regulatory protections as my mother (ignoring my guidance) when she occasionally instructs a local solicitor.

Rather than special rules for special firms, there is a need for sensitivity in the application of the rules towards different categories of client. The call for a lighter hand where sophisticated corporate buyers of legal services are being served by high street firms is just as relevant to those firms, albeit less often, as it is on a daily basis to CLLS member firms in the City of London.

This is the message that the CLLS has consistently advanced throughout the debates leading to the Legal Services Act and during its regular meetings with the SRA. It is disappointing that this carefully spelt-out need has not yet been addressed by the SRA despite its hyper-activity over the last year. This is so despite the SRA having accepted Clifford Chance’s invitation to visit the firm to find out how different the practice of the world’s largest law firm is from the bulk of the legal services provided in the high street.

The second reason why this review should be welcomed is a straightforward one. What organisation, other than the Law Society, is in a position to fill the gap created by the SRA’s too-slow response? The Legal Services Board is not yet operational and, in any event, as constituted is not intended to be the first-line regulator. Its powers are confined to overseeing the Law Society as the first-line regulator. It can fine the Society for under-performance – it is clear where the buck stops when it comes to accountability – and, in extreme circumstances, replace it.

What would have been the reaction across the profession, including among the City’s major law firms, if the Law Society in both its regulatory and representative capacities had not taken the initiative?

Sensitivity must be displayed in all quarters in seeking to address the genuine regulatory needs of different parts of a very diverse legal profession.

If this cannot be achieved under Lord Hunt’s umbrella, with the Law Society and the SRA working together and with the SRA showing a willingness to respond to the outcome, the case for a separate regulator for our major city and international law firms could emerge. Surely, through the application of common sense all round, that possible consequence will be avoided?

David McIntosh, a past President of the Law Society of England and Wales, chairs the CLLS and practises as a regulation lawyer at Fox Solicitors