LAWYERS NEED TO ADAPT AS CHANGES TO THE COMMERCIAL AND CULTURAL LANDSCAPE GATHER PACE.

JANET PARASKEVA OUTLINES THE BENEFITS OF FREEING UP LEGAL SERVICES

The government's recently published report on regulation and the future of legal services contained important proposals about the future shape of the legal profession.

Some of these ideas fit well with the Law Society Council's programme of reform.

However, others do not, and will not receive the Society's support.

We were pleased with the government's decision not to open the conveyancing market to further competition.

As we argued in the our response to In the Public Interest, this would not bring any great benefits to the public in terms of price or of quality, and may also have had the unintended and undesirable consequence of damaging access to justice.

Conversely, the Society is disappointed with the government's announcement that it proposes to open probate services to greater competition.

We will try to persuade the government to defer implementation at least until its review of regulation of the whole legal profession is completed.

Perhaps of greatest importance are the government's proposals in the report to make it possible for employed lawyers to deliver legal advice to third parties, and that it intends to resolve the regulatory problems posed by multi-disciplinary practice.

The council is committed to the liberalisation of legal practice, both in relation to MDPs and employed lawyers.

In 1999, the council voted to permit MDPs to the maximum extent possible, provided the necessary consumer protections are in place.

The council has also decided to change the rule that prevents employed lawyers from giving advice to their employer's customers, again, subject to the proviso that the consumer is properly protected.

Therefore, the Society broadly supports the government's proposals, although further research and analysis of the impact such changes might have on the viability of solicitors' firms and access to justice will be important in planning that change.

What many people want to know - both in England and Wales and beyond - is why the Society is so committed to the liberalisation of legal services.

To answer this question we need to take a step back.

The UK is one of the most liberalised, competitive markets in the world.

This is the case whether you are talking about financial services or utilities, communications or public transport.

It has been the policy of successive governments over the past 25 years to make competition central to economic activity.

One of the consequences of this is a climate in which neither politicians nor the public are particularly tolerant of anti-competitive practices and where the public has come to expect high levels of customer service.

Technology has transformed the delivery of so many services, making them fast, efficient and easy to access.

Like it or not, these are the standards by which legal services are now judged.

At the same time there has been an explosion in access to information and increased levels of education mean that people expect more and forgive less.

Greater transparency and better value for money are expected, while much of the traditional reverence for professionals has disappeared.

In this atmosphere, the legal professions need to adapt.

Partly because consumers expect it; partly because the Office of Fair Trading, as champion of competition and the consumer, demands it; and finally, because, given these pressures, the government will not accept anything less.

Given the prevailing climate, lawyers have little option but to change.

But we also recognise that the reforms proposed have the potential to bring great benefits to solicitors.

The introduction of MDPs could mean an inflow of capital for lawyers' practices, improving infrastructures, marketing and other resources.

New modes of practice could mean less administrative work for solicitors and greater focus on the areas where their training, experience and expertise mean they can add the greatest value.

Employment brings fewer of the financial risks associated with private practice and can bring greater benefits in terms of salary, pension, training and promotion.

It can also offer a more diverse career, with greater flexibility for part-time working and opportunities to move into other areas of management.

This kind of liberalisation, permitting greater investment and better links with related professionals, could also enable solicitors to compete more effectively than ever with unqualified advisers.

These advisers are a threat both to solicitors and clients, and while we are lobbying the government to address the problem nationally, it is important that solicitors offer a challenge directly, not just by offering first-class advice, where solicitors naturally have the edge, but by offering first- class customer service as well.

The council is unswervingly committed to supporting the development of legal practice, and to supporting solicitors as they adapt to the changing market place.

What we cannot do is preserve the traditional approaches in aspic and pretend that nothing needs to change - and it would be a failure of leadership to do so.

We cannot immunise legal practice against the commercial, cultural and technological changes going on around us.

We can only try to shape their impact.

These changes present many opportunities for lawyers.

To make the most of them it is essential that we engage with the world around us as it is, even if it is not as we would like it to be.

Janet Paraskeva is the Law Society's chief executive