A deep rift between the two sides of the English legal profession over legal disciplinary practices (LDPs) was exposed at the International Bar Association (IBA) conference in Auckland as the leader of the bar slammed the model as a recipe for terrorist take-overs of law firms.

Bar Council chairman Stephen Irwin QC attacked the LDP concept - which was put forward by Sir David Clementi in the consultation for his review of regulation of legal services - as misguided and dangerous, and said that barristers were adamantly opposed to it. He said that while LDPs would provide short-term efficiency gains, they would ultimately 'put profit at the forefront' and force lawyers to be beholden to shareholders.


Irwin: lawyers beholden

It is understood that Sir David favours the LDP concept - in the consultation, he said they could be owned by non-lawyers. The Law Society has said that it supports LDPs in principle.

Mr Irwin warned that non-lawyer investment in law firms would make it increasingly difficult to determine who owned a practice, opening the prospect of money launderers and terrorists becoming involved. The LDP model would also fan the so-called compensation culture. 'We haven't got a compensation culture at the moment,' said Mr Irwin, 'but boy, would we have one with LDPs.'


The bar chairman also predicted that if the model were adopted in the UK, it would quickly spread to other jurisdictions. 'London has the biggest law firms in the world and if we allow outside ownership of law firms, we will export it around the world,' predicted Mr Irwin. 'If it happens in England, then competition authorities in Brussels will ask why it can't happen in the rest of the EU.'


However, Mr Irwin's criticism was countered by Law Society President Edward Nally, who counselled against the pre-Clementi debate around the prospect of LDPs becoming alarmist. He suggested any final recommended model would be 'modest', allowing for little more than solicitors and barristers joining together in practice.


Mr Nally pointed to Law Society research that showed 'cautious enthusiasm' within the solicitors' profession for LDPs, provided they were regulated to the same standards as traditionally structured law firms. He said that as yet, there were no firm proposals for non-lawyer ownership of law firms. He also criticised terminology such as 'supermarket law' as trivialising an important concept that held many career benefits for solicitors.