The Conservatives will not allow non-lawyers to own law firms if they are elected, the Shadow Attorney-General revealed last week.


Dominic Grieve MP told leading lawyers at the Gazette's pre-election debate in London that he has serious ethical concerns about the concept. 'I do not see how either I or my colleagues would ever accept the notion of outsiders being able to own law firms,' he said.



The Liberal Democrats' shadow constitutional affairs secretary, David Heath, was equally opposed. 'I instinctively recoil from the idea of Tesco Law, as it is put, but actually I do not think it is Tesco Law that we need to worry about,' he said. 'It is more NatWest Law or Barclays Law. The conflict of interest within practices of that kind are likely to be insurmountable.'


Mr Grieve said he also disliked the regulatory model put forward by Sir David Clementi, insisting that self-regulation is better for delivering higher standards and ensuring independence.


He said: 'It is all very well setting up an independent regulator appointed, I note, by the Lord Chancellor, but the fact is that the state will be taking a very big stake in the future in the way in which professions operate. If states wish to abuse that position, it is very easy for them to do so. I am a cynic. I think if you give people power, they start to use it.'


The Lord Chancellor, Lord Falconer, said the Clementi reforms would lead to regulation 'that more reflects the needs and aspirations of the users of legal services'.


He said: 'The consequence of Sir David Clementi's proposals being put into effect is that in five years' time you will have a much more client-conscious, consumer-driven legal profession, both in the way that individual firms operate and also in the ways that legal services are delivered.'


The Lord Chancellor also came under heavy attack over Legal Services Commission plans for competitive tendering for criminal legal aid work in London.


Mr Grieve said: 'Large numbers of firms will stop doing the work. The remaining firms will, I suspect, be of very dubious reputation and quality. I think that far from it ultimately saving money, it will all come tumbling down...


'I cannot see the rationale for this policy at all, except - [and] I suppose this is what they want to do - to destroy criminal legal aid for defence work and introduce an entirely publicly funded defender system, in which case we are taking a rather unpleasant step towards a Soviet-style state.'


However, Lord Falconer insisted that the proposals will maintain quality. 'It seems to me that competition in pricing can provide more funding available for legal aid,' he said. 'The question of who is the cheapest suggests that there will be no quality protection, which is wrong. I do not think that, at the end of the day, competition on price is a bad thing.'


Mr Grieve expressed confidence in the future of the Human Rights Act 1998, despite attacks by party leader Michael Howard, adding that he does not believe the Act 'has anything to do with fuelling the compensation culture'.


Lord Falconer and Mr Grieve both made commitments to build a new Commercial Court, with Mr Grieve saying he might use the money the government is putting towards the proposed supreme court.


Lord Falconer explained that the problem was not money. 'In truth the problem is actually in finding a site and developing it,' he said.



Roger Smith, director of human rights group Justice, and Sue Ashtiany, a partner at City firm Nabarro Nathanson and a commissioner of the Equal Opportunities Commission, were also on the panel, which was chaired by Gazette Editor Jonathan Ames.