I am becoming deeply concerned that the greater competition which is going to challenge small firms’ very existence is being compounded by ever-increasing regulation of those that are left.

The Co-op has just announced extensive family law competition which it says will yield 3,000 new jobs. It does not say that it will probably cost 5,000 existing jobs in the profession, if the example of personal injury is anything to go by. At the same time, sole practitioners like myself are being met with detailed requirements to nominate our firms’ COLP and COFA and fill in forms which in themselves do not cause too much difficulty. However, I have to ask why this is necessary in the case of a sole practitioner, when clearly the person who is going to fill these roles is, nine times out of 10, the sole practitioner concerned. Why are the regulations not drafted with an element of common sense, so that the default appointment for these two roles is the sole practitioner?

The same sort of common sense should be applied to many other regulations. There is little point in the government telling us it is trying to cut down on needless regulations for small firms if our professional bodies are seeking to do otherwise. I also wonder how extensive these regulations are going to be for our competitors, who do not have to be authorised by the SRA. I suspect the playing field is going to be uneven.

I thank God my days are nearly over in the profession after 41 years and that I convinced none of my children to become lawyers.

Peter Mason-Apps, Mason-Apps Smallmans & Co Maidenhead