The lenient treatment of professions under the Competition Act 1998 is so singular -- and the features criticised by the report so evidently in need of scrutiny -- that the warning by John Vickers, director-general of the Office of Fair Trading (OFT), that further steps will follow if no progress is made within 12 months is, frankly, a minimalist regulatory response.

The conclusion that 'rather than pressing now for restructuring to end the dual structure of the legal profession, the best approach is to address its remaining adverse effects through further liberalisation of the professional rules' is disappointing.The restrictions targeted for abolition fall within two categories.

The first are indirect entry restrictions:-- Restriction on formation of multi-disciplinary partnerships (MDPs);-- Restriction on 'in-house' solicitors advising external clients;-- Restriction on barristers forming partnerships and conduct restrictions;-- Advertising restrictions (for example, comparative fee advertising);-- Marketing restrictions (for example, cold-calling, and referral commissions);-- Pricing restrictions (Law Society guidance);-- Restriction on barristers having direct access to clients, and;-- Restriction on barristers conducting litigation.Appropriately, the market for the provision of competition law provides an interesting case-study for the OFT.

Solicitors have rights of audience before the principal relevant bodies (the OFT, the Competition Commission, the EC Commission and the Courts in Luxembourg).So, barristers have had no advantage in competing for that work beyond the intrinsic value of the contribution they offer.

Yet they are seriously disadvantaged by the direct access rule and the rule against partnerships.Much competition law work spins out of pre-existing client relationships, built up on previous transactions done by firms for clients, and resulting in strong working relationships and detailed business knowledge.The combination of solicitors getting repeat client work, and the restrictions on barristers acting directly for clients, has seen barristers lose out in the field of competition law, where competitors include, for the EC work, lawyers qualified in other jurisdictions and to some extent economists as well as solicitors.This may be good for solicitors practising in the field such as me; it must equally be bad for competition in the market.By Laura Carstensen.SEEKING VIEWS BEYOND COMPETITIVE HORIZONS, BY JOHN WOOTONThe relatively short report on competition in the legal, accountancy and architecture professions, published by the OFT on Budget day, together with a paper by Law and Economics Consulting Group (LECG), raises important issues about competition in the supply of professional services.However, the body of evidence on which the OFT report is based appears to be limited and the analysis of each profession is not detailed.

Therefore, the government is right to undertake a further consultation exercise before deciding whether to implement t he potential reforms identified in the report.The exception is the special exemption procedure under the Competition Act 1998 for certain professional rules.

This procedure has yet to be invoked, and the government has decided to repeal it in any event.The report's proposed reforms raise many public interest issues which go beyond the scope of competition policy.

These include: quality standards for consumer protection; independence and absence of conflict of interest on the part of a legal adviser (whether or not acting as an advocate in court); the duties of barristers and solicitors to the courts in which they practise; access to legal advice (particularly for personal and smaller business clients with limited budgets); and the possible effect of the reforms on the international recognition of members of the UK legal professions.These issues cannot all be effectively considered in the context of a review of professional rules by the DGFT under the Competition Act, or by the Competition Commission in a monopoly inquiry into the provision of legal services.Legislative initiatives, combined with reforms instigated by the professions themselves, may therefore be expected to play an important role in the implementation of any reforms.Any reduction in the scope of legal privilege would raise fundamental issues concerning the rights of the individual to obtain confidential legal advice.

The suggestion in the LECG paper that privilege be extended to the provision of certain types of advice by other professionals has much to commend it.From the perspective of law firms which provide their services chiefly to larger business clients, frequently on an international basis, any reforms deriving from the report are unlikely to affect significantly the environment in which they compete.For the transactional and advisory work which they undertake, such firms already face competition not only from other professions, including accountancy firms, barristers, patent agents and economic consultancies, but also from law firms in other jurisdictions, particularly the US.The development of MDPs, particularly with accountants, may be thought to be of greatest significance in the business law field.

It is interesting in this context to note the view of the LECG that such MDPs may create a risk of a small number of large accounting firms dominating the UK legal market.To compete effectively on an international basis, UK law firms have a vital interest in the elimination of unnecessary barriers to entry to the legal profession throughout the world.

The UK has a relatively open legal market by international standards, as the LECG paper tends to confirm and as is witnessed by the large number of foreign lawyers established in London and elsewhere in the UK.Our legal professional has achieved a degree of success in exporting its services and in influencing the global development of legal practice which has no parallel, save possibly for the US legal profession.

This success in international competition may well owe a good deal to the competitiveness and willingness to innovate, which has been demonstrated by UK business lawyers over many years.