Report comment

But, Mary, my point is that regulation per se does not change anything. The classic example is that firm in Kent recently which got husband to execute wife's will and vice versa (sorry to bang on in Latin all the time!).

In fact it could be argued that regulation in itself which costs time and money in compliance etc means that there is less time to spend on the job itself.

I suppose our regulator sees to it that we are (over?) insured, but I read of many who practise uninsured.

If I go to an antique dealer and he represents a painting as being by van Gough, he is only governed by the Sale of Goods Act and not obliged to be insured despite my spending £25m as a result.

What's the difference? Why is he not regulated, but we are? And that very same regulation requires us now to carry, yes it is a burden, £2m insurance cover when we only need at most £500,000 for every day purposes? Surely the courts, when they are working properly that is, should be the client's recourse? And now we have the LeO, SRA, and God alone knows who else besides looking over our shoulders. Is it any wonder that there are now those who simply cannot afford to practise, and cannot afford to leave either due to the cost of run off cover. All this regulation, generally a New Labour brain wave, has gone far too far and is in the process of ruining this profession which, in the 1970s in Eastbourne at least, was something we could justly be proud to belong to. Not any more, it's not!