Clementi: independence 'under threat', CCBE meeting told

Leaders of legal professions from around Europe lined up at the weekend to reinforce their opposition to English and Welsh solicitors' firms being allowed external capital investment.


Meeting in Bordeaux at the bi-annual plenary session of the Council of the Bars and Law Societies of the EU (CCBE), both large and small member states condemned the proposals - contained in last year's Clementi report - as posing a grave threat to lawyers' independence.


A rift within the UK's CCBE delegation itself was also exposed at the plenary. Leading the warnings against Clementi was the delegation from Northern Ireland, which maintained that the British government has indicated that the reforms may not be suitable or 'applicable' to the province.


The Republic of Ireland delegation meanwhile said that 'greater government involvement' in the regulation of lawyers - in the form of Clementi's proposed legal services board for England and Wales - was 'not an appropriate way forward'.



Michael Irvine, an Irish delegate, said: 'Clementi would certainly not be a sensible way forward for us [in the republic] to proceed.'


Mr Irvine said that the Irish Competition Commission had 'already latched on to Clementi' and was actively promoting it as a model for reform of the legal profession there. 'We disagree,' said Mr Irvine. 'We believe there is already strong competition in Ireland.'


Criticism of Clementi came from various other delegations, with the Danes also expressing profound unease. Henrik Rothe told delegates that the Danish bar had commissioned consultants to provide a report to the country's competition authorities showing that exclusively lawyer-owned law firms remain the most competitive model. The delegations from Greece and Hungary also lined up against external capital.


That left the English delegation to defend the Law Society's policy of qualified support for the Clementi proposals. Society President Edward Nally attempted to reassure his UK and European counterparts, saying 'we do not advocate a free-for-all - indeed, quite the opposite'.