Report comment

Jonathan, well said and I agree with you - 'unbundling' isn't going to go away. The regulators, the judiciary and the public all want it. And rather than burying their heads in the sand, the profession and the Law Society should be establishing a proper basis for how this type of work should be taken on by solicitors. There needs to be a standard engagement letter approved by TLS and exhibited in a Practice Direction from the Court of Appeal together with a simplified explanatory note for clients to understand fully the limited nature of the work. There is also the thorny topic of PI cover which is aired on this site on occasion. It's high time the gordian knot on PII was cut. If unbundling is to be more widely accepted, then a quid pro quo is needed. A special form of cover needs to be adapted by the London insurance market and paid for by clients who want cheaper services. Insurers should be interested as it represents a mass market thus the cover wouldn't be unaffordable. PII needs to evolve beyond what it is today and is stuck in the 60s or 70s when it was first introduced. It mostly needs to be phased out altogether with the risk passing to the client except in cases of dishonesty. Law firms could have a less expensive fidelity / D&O cover. And yes, there are solicitors who want to do unbundled work. Ironically, they will end up getting more work rather than less. What are the stats ? Only 30% of people obtain advice about a legal problem. Why ? Because the cost is too high and is open-ended. So, to borrow a phrase - the ball is in the court of the judiciary for cast-iron directions and future unequivocal judgments, the SRA for new regs and insurers for a new client PI policy. And for those who will tell me that what I've said is entirely wrong, there are General Counsel ready to send work to solicitors interested in segmented work.