Report comment

Please fill in the form to report an unsuitable comment. Please state which comment is of concern and why. It will be sent to our moderator for review.

Comment

The debate below is really about the utterly useless hodge-podge, duplication and over-regulation of legal services in E&W which doesn't exist in other jurisdictions around the world. What is the point of the current regulatory system which has solicitors competing directly for the exact same services with barristers and legal execs while barristers do exactly the same and legal execs also do the same - with all of them charging the same prices ? Where is the competitive element in that ? There is none. If there was one qualifying exam and practical training for all of them as one, it would save an enormous amount of confusion and expense. And here, I'm referring to the long-suffering clients. They can't make head or tail of it all. And who can blame them ? It's difficult enough for us to understand ! Added to the confusion are CMCs who should have been abolished a decade ago. If there was one entry point into the profession, then the inevitable cross-overs from barrister to solicitor or vice versa could still occur. (As far as I know, no-one changes from being a barrister or solicitor to become a legal exec.) So, it isn't snobbery. The plain truth is that the profession in E&W is old-fashioned, outdated, hopelessly duplicated and over-regulated. It needs to enter the 21st century. This applies especially to the bar. A fused profession doesn't mean the end of specialising as a barrister. The bar in other common law countries with a fused profession is as good or in some cases better than E&W. Of course, barrister MPs in E&W would fight tooth and nail against any change. But if the CMA wants to loosen up competition in the legal profession, there needs to be one legal regulator for everyone and one professional qualification and entry point. Then clients will be able to choose much more easily.

Your details

Cancel