Report comment

While 'dumbing down' of the legal profession is rightly to be resisted, the proposed changes are surely not a 'dumbing down.' What is proposed, and forms the thrust of the article, is changes that "permit solicitors to provide unreserved legal services from unregulated firms." That would put solicitors on a more level playing field with (say) will writers, should they choose to work in an unregulated entity which provides only unreserved legal services. They would therefore be free of the regulatory burdens and cost in competing with unregulated entities. So long as clients are well aware (plainly informed - I appreciate some clients may never be aware of anything they are told) of the distinctions and the limitations, why not? We complain about there not being a level playing field, and now one is offered in some areas we complain! Why?

I can see a future where a law firm may offer a wide range of services, but focus on regulated activities, and have referral/consultancy arrangements with various sole practitioners providing advice in unregulated matters. Each may benefit - the law firm can be smaller and focus on 'core' areas; and the unregulated sole practitioners (whom I imagine will practise within limited liability entities) may have a source of referral instructions with some contribution to marketing costs.

It doesn't have to mean the death of the profession - it could mean its re-invigoration. retired solicitors with something still to contribute could still work, without the targets and stress of being a formal consultant to a firm, and the firm could have access to an expertise without having to provide it whether there was demand for it or not.

The devil may be in the detail, but the principle isn't obviously such a bad one.