Balancing choice

With client protection at the heart of the Law Society's final response to the LCD consultation paper in the public interest?, Carolyn Kirby warns the government that choice must not come at the expense of quality and access to justice

The Law Society has submitted its final response to the Lord Chancellor's Department's consultation paper - In the Public Interest? - the most important review of the future delivery of legal services for some years.

Before I go any further I would like to thank everyone who worked so hard to contribute to the final response.

The Law Society undertook an extensive programme of consultation with different interest groups within the profession.

Not only was the consultation paper discussed at the conference of local law society presidents and secretaries, and at the Law Society's annual conference in Manchester, but relevant boards, committees and sections within the Society were also asked to consider the LCD's proposals.

A highly successful programme of regional seminars provided an opportunity to discuss the various issues with practitioners locally.

The draft response was published on the Society's Web site from the middle of October, to enable anyone who wished to comment on it to have the opportunity to do so.

The Society's final draft response was discussed and endorsed by the council two weeks ago and the response itself was submitted to the LCD on 22 November.

The Law Society's response to the government consultation has been shaped by a number of key principles.

The core values of solicitors - independence of advice, integrity, and the avoidance of conflicts of interest - are of enormous value to the public and need to be preserved.

The protections provided to solicitors' clients are intended to go no further than is necessary to ensure proper consumer protection.

If alternative commercial providers are to be permitted, they would need to provide a similar degree of consumer protection.

We have concluded that to ensure that the same level of consumer protection is available whichever entity provides legal services, it is necessary to require any new commercial providers to deliver services through a ring-fenced incorporated solicitor's practice.

In all the discussions we have had with members of the profession - at seminars and conferences, by e-mail and in research - this view has come through strongly.

This is why we do not support the introduction of authorised conveyancing practitioners and authorised probate practitioners.

It is likely that if institutions such as the big lenders or the supermarkets sought to enter the legal services market, their resources would enable them to take a large share of the market currently served by high street firms.

The result would be that many high street firms would no longer be viable.

The institutions are likely to cherry-pick particularly profitable services, rather than provide the full range of services offered by high street and rural firms.

There is thus, in the Law Society's view, a real risk that loss of high street firms would make some important legal services difficult to obtain.

This would cause particular problems for some clients, such as those whose first language is not English, and for those in rural areas - running contrary to the government's policy of 'rural proofing'.

Adequate access to justice would be placed at risk.

Therefore, it is crucial that any measures to enable large institutions to provide legal services should not be introduced until careful research has been conducted into the impact of liberalisation on the availability of legal services generally.

The government's consultation paper demonstrates genuine concern to ensure that access to justice was not imperilled through ill-conceived changes.

We believe that ministers will be responsive to our argument that much further research and economic analysis is needed before firm decisions are taken.

Solicitors do recognise that increasing change is inevitable.

What is most impressive is that one of the strongest themes to come through in the regional seminars was not the self-interest of solicitors, but their real concern to ensure that members of the public are offered a quality service that is professional, efficient and which they can really trust.

These concerns are at the heart of the Law Society's response to this government consultation.

We want to promote appropriate competition and innovation but we also want to ensure adequate access to legal services for everyone in society.

At the same time it is our duty to provide proper consumer and public interest safeguards so that we can ensure that the public has access to legal services which are reliable, trustworthy, good value and, above all, a model of excellence.

The Society's response has been submitted on your behalf and may have a profound effect on your future.

I urge you to read it for yourself.

- Find the response on the Law Society's Web site at: www.lawsociety.org.uk by clicking on 'Quality, Choice and the Public Interest: the Law Society's Response to the LCD's Consultation, In the Public Interest?'.

Carolyn Kirby is the Law Society president