Report comment

It's more than a "nudge" to force firms to do something that doesn't come naturally. The SRA seems to be in favour of open markets when they benefit consumers, and against them when they are perceived to disadvantage consumers. This reflects the SRA's self-selected mission to be the consumer's champion, rather than a neutral regulator. Why does the Law Society continue to tolerate (and pay about half the practising fee to) this hostile force?