There seems to have been remarkably little challenge to various sweeping assumptions on which Sir David Clementi has based his conclusions - for instance, that outside investment in law firms 'should increase capacity and exert downward pressure on prices'.

This implies the same economies apply to a solicitors' practice as, for instance, a supermarket (not inappropriate since it seems that is where most of us will be practising from in the near future).


I am not aware of any existing lack of capacity, indeed competition in many areas of the law remains cutthroat as firms strive for market share. A conveyance or a divorce is not a manufactured commodity that can be produced more cheaply because of greater investment; the only way prices can be reduced is to spend less time on matters or give them to someone less qualified - not an attractive proposition to a conscientious lawyer, still less to his indemnity insurer.


And anyone investing his capital will want a return on that money - how is lowering prices supposed to generate more profit with which to provide that return? Sir David is quoted as speculating that the changes he proposes might bring 'fresh ideas about how legal services might be provided in consumer-friendly ways'. Again, there is a massive assumption that the existing structure is not 'consumer-friendly'. Speaking for myself, we greet clients with a smile and a cup of coffee, our telephones are answered immediately by a real person, we reply promptly to e-mails and letters, and I will see clients in the evening or at weekends if necessary.


Compare that with almost any big organisation that takes an age to answer the telephone, loses things, provides no continuity of personnel dealing with a matter, and certainly is not geared up to anything so old-fashioned as personal contact.


I have never had any indication from my clients or anyone else that my firm, or high street solicitors generally, are unfriendly or inaccessible and for Sir David to imply otherwise is a liberty.


Yet the profession, including its supposed representatives at the Law Society, seems content to accept this rubbish as the gospel truth. Perhaps I will apply for that shelf-stacker's job at the local supermarket. It would certainly give me greater security and financial stability than trying to run a legal practice with the goalposts constantly moving.