In your report of the recent International Bar Association meeting in Lisbon (see [2005] Gazette, 26 May, 1), Heinz Weil, the former president of the Council of Bars and Law Societies of Europe, criticised English lawyers for not standing up more to Sir David Clementi.

This appears to have been supported by other leaders of bars across the world.


Solicitor Sole Practitioners has warned against Clementi reforms that are prejudicial to the issues of independence of the legal profession, namely the prospect of legal disciplinary partnerships (LDPs) being owned by external capital.


In response to a questionnaire sent by the committee of the group, 95% of sole principals were against the non-legal ownership of legal firms because of the dangers to the inherent independence of advice and the potential influence on advice for commercial and other motives. The group's executive committee cannot understand why this principle, which appears to be immediately obvious to every other responsible legal body in the world, is not appreciated fully in this country and is being thrown away so lightly at the altar of expediency and perceived consumer benefit. Sole practitioners believe that once the door is opened to outside capital, it will be difficult to close it and to restore the status quo.


The legislation should not allow a majority external interest until it has been possible to see how minority interests work, and also importantly to see how the regulatory proposals bed down. To permit majority outside ownership at the same time as an untried system of regulation, where quite frankly no one has come up with coherent proposals for regulation, is inviting serious problems.


Now that the position of the Law Society as a continuing regulator is clear, it is not too late for it to adopt a position of caution in respect of LDPs. I would hope it could adopt the proposal that only minority non-lawyer interests in solicitors' firms should be allowed at present and that a further move to permit majority non-lawyer ownership will only be on the basis of a future consideration by Parliament, depending on the circumstances at that time.


Clive Sutton, Lymington, Hampshire