I read with interest your article and editorial concerning my report (co-authored with Carlos Lapuerta) for the Department for Constitutional Affairs on outside ownership of law firms (see [2005] Gazette, 22 September, 1).

It is perfectly true that we argue there is no good reason to regulate ownership of law firms to guarantee good ethical standards - of course, we do think these standards should be regulated, but not by controlling who owns law firms. After all, many professionals are regulated to ensure good standards - for example, doctors and airline pilots- but that does not mean regulation should take the form of prohibiting ordinary private companies to enter those industries. Our whole economic system relies on ordinary market forces, supplemented by regulation where necessary, to provide a good mix of value, quality, and ethical service provision.


Most, but by no means all of the lawyers we spoke to (the Bar Council being the notable exception) agreed with this point. They also agreed with our main point - that one can think of many pros and cons in relation to outside ownership relative to lawyer-owned firms, but that does not mean the government should work out which one it prefers and then make regulations prohibiting anything else.


It may be that a well-known high street chain of chemists would be able to offer a good service for, say, probate work. If it did, I am sure it would acquire a good reputation for that service and a large customer base. It might also be that other customers would prefer to continue using an independent, traditional solicitor. I am probably in the latter category myself, having had a couple of good experiences with the local London firm used by three generations of my family. But that does not mean the government should pass regulations saying I must use them, and I am not allowed to use a private company instead if I so choose.


James Dow, London Business School, London