The Legal Services Commission, Legal Services Ombudsman and Consumers Association have all called on Sir David Clementi to recommend independent regulation of the legal profession.

The Commerce & Industry Group, while not responding in detail to that part of his consultation, told Sir David that its members also 'expressed a clear preference' for model A - a legal services authority that would take on regulation in place of the professional bodies.

The Group for Solicitors with Disabilities, while not backing model A, said it best meets Sir David's terms of reference.

The Legal Aid Practitioners Group supported model B+, but said model A may be most appropriate if legal disciplinary partnerships (LDPs) are introduced.

The Association of Women Solicitors said model A would be needed for multi-disciplinary partnerships (MDPs).

The consultation closed last week.

Responses seen by the Gazette (for a selection, see [2004]Gazette, 10 June, page 3) showed no clear support for any particular model, although B+ received more backing than the other two proposed.

Model B would establish an umbrella legal services board to oversee the professional bodies in the exercise of their current functions; model B+ would be similar, with the addition that the bodies would separate their regulatory and representative functions.

There was more consistent support from groups for separating the handling of service and conduct complaints, and for both LDPs and, to a lesser extent, MDPs.

Individual law firms such as global giant Clifford Chance and top trade union firm Thompsons also backed LDPs.

Clifford Chance said the time is not right for MDPs.

The Legal Services Commission said the combined role of regulator and representative 'does not act effectively in the public interest'.

It highlighted examples - such as the current dispute with the bar over very high-cost criminal cases - where it said the professional bodies have a conflict of interest.

It said: 'Perhaps the clearest evidence that the current regulatory processes are not performing effectively is the fact that in July 2002, the commission felt it necessary to set up a special unit of its own to support its regional offices in investigating suppliers suspected of fraud or abuse of the legal aid scheme.'

The Consumers Association backed model A for ensuring independence of regulation in the eyes of the consumer.

'There are many examples of bodies that support maintaining restrictive practices that favour the interests of their members while arguing that they are in the public interest,' it said.

The ombudsman, Zahida Manzoor, concluded that an independent regulatory body, supported by an independent complaints-handling organisation, is required to stand 'at the apex of a new regulatory regime'.

However, she said there may still be a place for the professional bodies to take 'an effective role in the regulation of their members'.

While both were opposed to model A, neither the Law Society nor the Bar Council expressed a view on whether B or B+ would be preferable.

The Society said model A could increase the scope of government involvement in legal services 'to an inappropriate degree'.

The Institute of Legal Executives plumped for model B and the Council for Licensed Conveyancers said no decision should be taken before the risks and costs are assessed - but it indicated more support for B+ than A or B.

Some groups, such as the joint response of the Chartered Institute of Patent Agents and Institute of Trade Mark Attorneys, the joint response of the Young Solicitors Group and Trainee Solicitors Group, the Group for Solicitors with Disabilities, and Legal Action Group suggested alternatives that synthesised models A and B+.

By Neil Rose