The Clementi paper methodically goes through various options for shaking up the legal services sector.

Yet, as Philip Hoult reports, concerns remain about the approach to unregulated providers

At the press briefing announcing the publication of his long-awaited consultation paper, Sir David Clementi refused to be drawn when asked whether he already had in mind a particular outcome for his review.

But he did make it clear - without a great deal of explanation, it has to be said - that the existing regulatory framework was unacceptable.

The consultation paper proceeded to set out radical and conservative options for each of the five 'architectural issues' under review: institutional structures and the regulatory maze; self-regulation; complaints and discipline; unregulated providers and regulatory gaps; and new business structures.

On regulation, for example, Sir David pointed to two 'polarised approaches' of a super-regulator - modelled on the Financial Services Authority (FSA) - at one end, and an oversight board, with professional bodies such as the Law Society and the Bar Council retaining their regulatory roles, at the other.

He emphasised that different regulatory functions could be assigned to the regulator or the professional bodies, and so, between these two extremes, there was a myriad of potential results.

One 'possible solution' on the regulatory framework, he suggested, was a legal oversight board with the professional bodies being forced to split their regulatory and representative roles.

As an exercise in laying the various options on the table, the consultation was well received with one obvious exception.

When it came to unregulated providers and regulatory gaps, an area of major concern for the legal profession, Sir David devoted a mere four-and-a-half pages.

Briefly pointing out how some legal services are regulated according to who the provider is and some by the nature of the service, Sir David put the burden of deciding where the line should fall squarely on the government.

His main proposal for dealing with regulatory gaps was simply to adopt a legislative arrangement similar to that in the financial services sector, where legislation broadly outlines the areas the FSA controls, but also hands the Treasury the power to bring areas of practice under regulation.

This is unlikely to be enough to satisfy many parts of the legal profession, who contend that they are having to compete with the likes of claims farmers and employment advisers with one hand tied behind their backs, while at the same time receiving flak because of these other groups' shortcomings.

'I would not like to accuse Sir David of ducking the issue, but he has not covered it,' says Alison Hannah, director of the Legal Action Group.

'It would only take another disaster like The Accident Group and everyone will be asking where the regulation is.'

This view is shared by the Consumers Association, which, although backing liberalisation, does not believe that changes should lead to a free-for-all.

Emma Harrison, who is co-ordinating the association's approach to Clementi , said it would spend a lot of time in its response on the issue of regulatory gaps.

'There have been problems with the quality of services that consumers get, for example, with will drafting,' she said.

'When things go wrong, people need to have access to redress.

We think that [dealing with regulatory gaps] is crucial to delivering a liberalised regime.'

While it is easy to gauge the mood of lawyers on this particular issue, it is much harder to predict what their overall response will be.

Members of the Bar Council were confident that barristers would present a united front.

Whether solicitors will be able to do the same is perhaps a moot question - judging by the initial feedback, it will be hard work.

For example, on the question of legal disciplinary practices (LDPs) - favoured by Sir David ahead of multi-disciplinary partnerships - and the split of ownership and management of legal services providers, RAC head of legal practice Jonathan Gulliford was, unsurprisingly, pleased at the contents of the consultation paper.

'My gut reaction is that we would be very happy if the RAC was allowed to own a practice managed by lawyers,' he said.

'However, we would want to be able to draw on the general management experience that exists in a plc like ours.'

By contrast, Richard Miller, director of the Legal Aid Practitioners Group, said that allowing LDPs could spell severe problems for high street firms.

Mr Miller said: 'The real risk is that big commercial organisations will come and take the most profitable work, and high street firms will be left with legal aid and the least profitable work, which won't make for a viable business.'

A similar lack of consensus is likely to exist between the international firms headquartered in the City and sole practitioners or small firms.

Clifford Chance called on Sir David to differentiate between the various parts of the profession when deciding on the correct regulatory structure.

'It makes little sense for a global provider of legal services to be subject to precisely the same regulations as a small high street firm of solicitors', a spokesman said.

Meanwhile, Clive Sutton, chairman of the Sole Practitioners Group, was adamant that the main professional bodies must be left to regulate their own members.

'It would be ridiculous if we had to have an FSA-style system,' he claimed.

Mr Sutton said that, if the FSA model were to be adopted, then the Law Society would be left with the role of a trade union.

'The law should have greater stature than an ordinary trade association,' he argued.

Law Society chief executive Janet Paraskeva acknowledged last week that she had no idea what the overall response from solicitors would be, although she said the profession would prefer the most cost-effective and least intrusive regime.

The Society is holding roadshows nationally to discuss Clementi, and questionnaires will be sent to the profession asking what they think of the way they are represented.

Whether it will be a case of 'united we stand, divided we fall' remains to be seen.

What can be hoped for at the very least is that come 4 June - the deadline date for responses to the consultation - all the disparate parts of the profession have had their say.