Report comment

So, there we have it-a definition of the very essence of what it is at law to be a professional.

I remember that many years ago Sir David Napley wrote in his book “The Technique of Persuasion” that solicitors earnt fees to be professionals. This case throws a spotlight on the standards of behaviour which should be part of the DNA of every solicitor. But I just wonder how this all fits in with our current, competition obsessed, regulatory landscape?

If we give a client what they want, rather than what they need, is this just a recognition of consumerism.? Is it part of our performance of a contract for the delivery of services at a fixed price?

A junior lawyer recognises that a client does not need the service initially requested, or that litigation should perhaps take a different and cheaper for the client direction. Does he advise the client accordingly, or does he adhere to the demands of his current time costing target?

If we consider the risks that all professionals take in terms of an ever-evolving jurisprudence, where judges often seek to allocate blame to solicitors, the burdens faced by solicitors in their everyday practice are many.

The proper performance of our duty as a professional should be adequate, without any further prescription by the SRA, whose activism is threatening to distort and overwhelm much of what do.

Somebody once said, that integrity was about doing the right thing, even when nobody was looking. Regulatory inflation must therefore be kept at the lowest possible level, to stop professionalism being eroded to a point where it becomes meaningless.