This week, Ed Nally becomes president of the Law Society. He tells Neil Rose of his plans to put an end to 'self-flagellation' as the profession faces reform of the way it is regulated


At a time when regulation of the profession tops the agenda, it is no bad thing that Ed Nally becomes Law Society President this week. For, since 1999, Mr Nally has had the unenviable job of leading the complete rewrite of the Guide to the Professional Conduct of Solicitors. Some may argue he deserves the badge of office simply in recognition of this Herculean task.



Sir David Clementi will deliver his verdict on the future of regulation by the end of 2004. Mr Nally knows that whatever the outcome, 'there will be a need for us to deliver change.


'I just don't see us standing still,' the 48-year-old, Bolton-based practitioner explains. 'A big task for me is to deliver on the vision the [Law Society] council has for itself - which is that there should be a separation of regulation and representation in some way.'



Mr Nally insists that, with reform, the Society's dual functions are 'not completely irreconcilable' (see Split personality ). He accepts the idea of a regulatory board with substantial lay membership, to which the council would delegate its regulatory function, but thinks it should all remain under one roof.



Just because regulation is difficult, that does not mean it should be passed to somebody else, he says. 'We're not always popular regulators, but we have that responsibility and it's a duty.'


Mr Nally is disappointed that improvements in complaints-handling recognised by the Legal Services Ombudsman were not given much prominence in media coverage of her annual report last week.


While the Law Society was commended for the number of complaints it had closed, it also failed to hit most of its targets. 'I don't paint a picture of perfection across the piece,' he says. 'But I don't think credit is being given to other measures of quality.'


An example, he says, is the fall in the number of cases referred to the ombudsman. She attributed this in part to the Society dramatically increasing the number and value of ex gratia payments made to those whose complaints were handled poorly - in effect, implying that the Society paid them off before they went to the ombudsman.


Mr Nally says this is a classic example of the Law Society being damned if it does and damned if it doesn't. Had these complainants not received payments, he says, the Society would have been criticised for not tackling their grievances.


He is also keen to look at the broader picture - regulation is much more than just complaints. 'If we were failing miserably in all areas of our regulatory activity, that would be very serious,' he says. 'But there is no suggestion we are.'


For all the talk of regulation, Mr Nally identifies how the Law Society should be representing solicitors as a central theme of his presidency.


'This is not the usual message that I intend to go out and listen. It's more urgent than that. I don't propose to go through the jaded process of finding out what the Law Society is doing badly or well.' Instead of 'indulgent self-flagellation', he intends to take a clean sheet of paper and ask solicitors: 'What sort of representation do you want from the Law Society?'


Yet an upside of the focus on regulation has been to engage the large City firms to an unprecedented degree. 'An early challenge is to get the City firms to understand who I am and where I'm coming from,' says Mr Nally.


Who he is is a commercial property partner at Bolton-based 11-partner high street practice Fieldings Porter, who also acts as Diocesan solicitor to the Salford Roman Catholic Diocese and is a big Bolton Wanderers fan.


Where he is coming from, so far as City firms are concerned, is that 'the one-size-fits-all notion [of regulation] genuinely doesn't work. We have to acknowledge that different types of practices, firms and solicitors operate in different fashions'.


He explains that while it is still one profession, 'we need to make sure the City realises we will look at ways to regulate them differently'. That does not mean hands-off regulation, he observes: 'It's the responsibility of the Law Society to regulate large City firms in a way which is more proportionate to their needs.'


For example, it is 'crazy' to compel them to send out traditional rule 15 letters; but it is 'eminently sensible' to oblige them to have proper terms of engagement with clients.


This leads on to the hot issue of conflicts of interest, for which the Law Society has taken much flak in the legal press. New rules, after much delay, are expected to be debated by the council this week.


'I'm really pleased we've got the conflict and confidentiality rules reaching the finishing line,' Mr Nally says, rejecting suggestions that City firms have been wilfully flouting the rules - which he notes are currently a 'mishmash' of principles, case law and council guidance.


'The nature of their practice and client base is making it so complex that the opportunity to make mistakes is exacerbated. So what can we do? The rules attempt to bring a coherent and cogent approach for the first time.'


Mr Nally insists City firms back the reforms. The first thing his regulation review working party did in 1999 was engage with the City of London Law Society, he says.


Add in hardy perennials such as legal aid and Mr Nally faces a busy year, a prospect he finds 'fantastically exciting'. His message is that the profession should not be so distracted by the uncertain future that it does not address more immediate issues - and that things are not as bad as they may appear.


'I am an eternal optimist,' says Mr Nally. 'I've had 25 very enjoyable years in private practice and have an unshakeable belief in the future of the profession. We should have more confidence in the flexibility of solicitors to adapt to change.'