Open market access warning

Allowing banks, building societies and other organisations to offer legal services will destroy many high street firms and reduce access to justice across the country, solicitors have claimed.

As last week's closing date for responses to the government's In the Public Interest? consultation passed, papers from several groups showed opposition to opening up the conveyancing and probate markets, along with caution for allowing employed solicitors to offer their services to the public.

Sussex Law Society said: 'There is a heavy onus on those who wish to change the status quo to show that there is some clear and definite benefit to the public interest in change.

This onus has not been discharged in the consultation paper.'

The Sole Practitioners Group said that consumer choice would actually be reduced 'as smaller firms are driven out of the market or no longer able to subsidise legal aid work...

this would be an unacceptable price to pay for widening consumer choice in one area of legal work'.

The Legal Aid Practitioners Group also predicted that firms would close: 'Opening up the market for legal services to a small handful of large commercial organisations will not improve competition.

On the contrary, it would have a significant detrimental effect.'

Surrey Law Society pointed to the pensions mis-selling scandal as an example of the kind of conflicts of interest which can arise in commercial organisations.

It concluded that effective regulation of such bodies 'would prove insuperable'.

The Young Solicitors Group (YSG) gave liberalisation a guarded welcome, but said providers should face the same professionalism and quality of service requirements as law firms.

The YSG also enthusiastically backed employed solicitors advising the public, arguing that they can provide independent advice.

It said new models of practice would improve career opportunities for young solicitors and also aid diversity, 'since anecdotal evidence suggests there is a greater diversity of solicitors working in-house than in private practice'.

Neil Rose