The Law Society of Scotland has published an agenda-setting equality and diversity strategy for the organisation and wider profession during the next three years.

The new plan follows two previous ambitious and progressive three-year strategies on equality, and the Society intends follow up on the results of its key research from the previous strategy on the experiences of ethnic minority solicitors, and bullying and harassment in the legal profession, by working on the development of practical solutions to the issues identified.

In developing the new strategy the Society has taken account of the specific requirements needed to comply with the Equality Act 2010 for its public functions, but is to go beyond these and pursue a policy of seeking to comply with the requirements of the Act in relation to all its activities, policies and procedures, whether public or internal.

Neil Stevenson, director of representation and support at the Society, said: “We believe in speaking openly and publicly about our equality work, and we have presented at a number of conferences and events, including this year’s Stonewall national conference, which allows us to share our experiences of implementing an equality strategy and highlight both the successes and the challenges still to be faced.

“We firmly believe that open debate, a willingness to learn from others, and transparency about strengths and issues will progress the equality agenda further for all organisations. This means taking a firm stance on equality issues and how to tackle them through legislation. The Society’s law reform team worked on detailed responses and given evidence to both the Scottish and UK Parliaments on proposed legislation and public consultations, such as the Equality Act 2010, and the Reform of the Equality and Human Rights Commission.

“The Society is committed to building on the work we’ve done so far and we will continue to promote and develop best practice in meeting the needs of a diverse legal profession – it’s good business sense after all to develop talent irrespective of a person’s background.

“We know there is more still to be done, and our programme of planned work shows honest reflection on the real issues still facing us, including; the gender pay gap in the profession, tackling bullying and harassment in the legal sector and the challenges faced by disabled people in accessing legal services. We have sets targets and plan to monitor impact, continue to liaise with groups and individuals to learn what we can do better, and work to ensure that equality and diversity are meaningfully considered in all aspects of our work.”

Law Society President John Wotton has predicted that barristers and solicitors will, in the future, increasingly work together in the same practices.

In a speech entitled “Fission or Fusion; Independence or Constraint?” which he delivered yesterday at Said Business School, Oxford, Mr Wotton told an audience of senior members of the legal sector, academics, students and business leaders that while he does not expect the two professions to fuse, he does anticipate that they will become less distinct, over time. Wotton expects the education and training of barristers and solicitors to converge and more advocates to start their careers in law firms, rather than barristers’ chambers.

In his speech Fission or Fusion; Independence or Constraint? John Wotton said:

“There must be competitive advantages and efficiencies to be gained from having the full range of dispute resolution services under the same roof.

“A number of corporate law firms have recruited experienced barristers. This seems entirely rational, for it is unlikely that the international commercial success of UK corporate firms has been achieved because, rather than in spite of, their lacking the trial advocacy capability of their US competitors.

“The concern on the part of the Bar to adapt their traditional structure to compete more effectively for legal aid contracts and other work, appears to be a recognition of this imperative.”

The speech comes against the backdrop of the new era in legal services, where the arrival of alternative business structures is expected to create more competition and innovation of legal services. Wotton points to ABS as a potential driving force for change in the established legal sector.

He said:

“The new modes of practice will increasingly challenge the norms under which lawyers practise under the separate titles of barrister and solicitor.

“I believe this development will lead inevitably to the need to revisit the question whether these two professions should continue to be separately trained, represented and regulated, as they have been for the past 180 years. I envisage the time coming when the barrister/solicitor distinction will be more a decorative than a functional aspect of our legal constitution.”

Wotton analysed the regulatory structure under the Legal Services Act and conclude that it is capable of maintaining the independence and standards of the legal profession and of operating successfully in the changing legal market environment. He said that it would depend, however, on the Legal Services Board recognising the limits of its statutory remit and the approved regulators acting independently of the LSB.

Wotton ended the speech with the prediction that it would be surprising if ABS would remain an innovation confined to England & Wales.

Following the recent decision in three cases brought by the Legal Services Commission (LSC) for the recovery of over payments, it looks as if more legal aid solicitors will find themselves on the receiving end of an application for recovery.

The three cases – LSC v Loomba, LSC v Ulasi, and LSC v Simon Carter & Ors [2012] EWHC 29 (QB) – which saw the LSC recovering approximately £250,000 in over payments – are likely to herald a series of further recovery attempts by the LSC. About 35 cases potentially involving up to £30m of over payments and which have been stayed pending the outcome of these test cases could now be pursued.

The LSC are reported as being “very pleased that the court has found in our favour, as this is an important principle which affects the legal aid fund.”

Given the fragile financial position of many legal aid solicitors firms, the actions by the LSC could easily push many into closure, further fueling the gloomy closure predictions for the coming year.

Managing the regulatory risks of outsourcing

They, whoever they are, are constantly telling us that as a profession, lawyers must all start to embrace new business models and practices if we are to survive the ABS revolution. They, whoever they are, are probably right. However, and it is an important however, as lawyers we must approach any changes with a degree of circumspection and ensure that we are not moving forward in a way which places our clients, or own firms, at risk.

Nowhere is this more topical than in relation to the ever growing trend for firms to outsource.

The following article looks at some of the regulatory issues and risks which firms face when considering this.

The forms of outsourcing

Outsourcing is big business and over the past six or seven years has gained a rapidly growing prominence in the legal world.

Outsourcing can take many different forms, including:

• outsourcing office services such as word-processing and secretarial services,
• having elements of the legal work outsourced to lawyers outside of the firm, sometimes overseas where labour costs are lower,
• sharing serviced offices so that the firm does not have to worry about problems relating to premises, and
• cloud computing – where firms store their data off site, run computer programmes remotely and access files and records via the Internet.

In the USA, where outsourcing has taken off far more than in the UK, many firms are having substantial parts of cases handled externally to the firm, including:

• discovery,
• document review,
• due diligence,
• drafting,
• legal research, and
• paralegal support.

In one way, solicitors have outsourced aspects of their work for a considerable time – instructing counsel to draft pleadings or give an expert opinion. This, however, has never been viewed as a problem since barristers form another group of professionals with rules of ethics and conduct as strong as those affecting solicitors. The problems only start to arise when firms outsource matters to businesses that are not subject to strict rules of conduct, which are not tightly regulated or even who are in a foreign country and may not even be subject to the same rule of law as solicitors here.

Whilst many firms continue to be uncomfortable about outsourcing legal work to third party providers, the reality of the situation is such that that a great deal of the work undertaken by law firms is relatively routine and does not need to be undertaken by highly qualified and costly solicitors and barristers. Overall costs, therefore, cam be reduced substantially if the more routine aspects of a case can be dealt with elsewhere.

The benefits of outsourcing

There can be no doubt that for many firms, the benefits of outsourcing are considerable. Law firms’ costs, particularly staff, premises and insurance costs are constantly increasing whilst at the same time the pressure upon firms to reduce fees, do more work for less money and limit disbursements places many firms between the proverbial rock and a hard place. Added to this, many clients are seeking improvements in speed and efficiency from firms whilst at the same time requiring that firms increase their levels of accountability.

Understandably then, outsourcing, which allows many firms both to reduce cost and to improve service, is becoming an increasingly attractive option.
Many of the providers of outsourced services are basing themselves overseas in economies where labour costs are lower, premises are cheaper and where the employment rules are less onerous and the benefits lower, or even non-existent. Even were the actual individual costs not lower, the ability of outsourced service providers to ensure that staff are more effectively utilised can in itself reduce costs. If a secretary or junior fee-earner is not employed fully then the incremental cost of their time increases.

From a perspective of continuity of service, the use of external providers can ensure that peaks and troughs are ironed out and that there is always a sufficient resource to undertake the work which needs to be done. Moreover, it means that the firm can simply purchase that support which it needs at the time at which it needs it.

Furthermore, fixed costs can be reduced because the firm does not have to rent space to house workers or purchase equipment and technology for them to use. There are no pension contributions to be made. There is no sickness pay to be found. There are no redundancy payments if levels of work decrease. There are no recruitment fees to pay when work levels pick up.

If one looks more widely and considers issues such as cloud computing external IT services, the benefits become even more apparent. Not only can firms can reduce capital expenditure on expensive IT equipment and the cost of IT support departments, but also they can allow fee-earners the greater flexibility of being able to access data and programmes anywhere where they can gain access to the Internet.

It looks like a win all round. But is everything really that easy? Can the firm simply find the cheapest supplier of services and watch the overheads fall?

The simple answer to that question is “No”. There are risks associated with all forms of outsourcing – not least of which are the regulatory risks – and it is these which we will consider in the remainder of this article.

The regulatory risks of outsourcing

So what are the risks associated with outsourcing and to what extent should firms be concerned about them?

There are at least ten separate regulatory risks associated with outsourcing:

• data security – information being lost or corrupted,
• lack of confidentiality – information being disclosed to third parties or even the use of information to assist in crime,
• risk of conflict of interests – there are a limited number of outsourcing suppliers and therefore a real danger that outsources may become involved in both sides of the same matter – firms wishing to outsource must therefore ensure that appropriate conflict checks are undertaken at the service provider and that where appropriate information barriers are put in place,
• loss of supervisory control – the outsourcing firm not knowing what the service provider is doing or how they are doing it,
• quality of service – the work undertaken by the service provider not being of a sufficiently high quality or of a variable quality,
• level of understanding and knowledge of the work being undertaken – service providers may not keep up to date with relevant developments or may miss cultural indicators that would have been picked up locally,
• availability and the reliability of ready access to information – the outsourcing firm not being able to gain access to information, data or files when required,
• consumer perception – whatever the safeguards that are put in place many consumers may have concerns about work being outsourced generally, may have objections to work being outsourced abroad (and thus depriving the home market of jobs) or may have concerns about the security of data outsourced abroad,
• contractual problems – breakdown in the contractual relationship during the work being undertaken – ability of the outsourcing firm to recover papers and data or to be able to handle the work without the service provider’s assistance,
• problems with local staff – an increase in outsourcing could cause local staff to fear that their jobs are at risk. This could lead to low morale, unwillingness to work with the outsources or even straightforward sabotage of the outsourcing arrangements,
• regulatory problems – breach of rules in the jurisdictions of either the outsourcing firm or the service provider, irrespective of whether any of the foregoing risks exist. This could include, for example, reserved work being undertaken by unqualified staff where the regulator felt that inadequate supervision existed.

In April 2005, the FSA produced a report on the risks associated with outsourcing to India. It concluded that “The main risk identified is the complexity of achieving suitable management oversight and control from a distance.”

Clearly the level of risk will depend upon the particular type outsourcing. Thus a firm that outsources part of its secretarial function will have fewer concerns than a firm which uses an Indian-based company to undertake a part of the legal work. However, both would need to be conscious of the requirement for confidentiality and data security.

The SRA in their response to the LSB’s consultation “Alternative business structures: approaches to licensing” made it clear how they would regard outsourcing when they stated that it would be allowed “subject to the regulated firm remaining at all times responsible for the activities of the outsourcer [service provider], which brings with it the necessity to monitor outsourced activities to ensure that the desired outcomes are being achieved.”

The SRA Code of Conduct

The SRA Code of Conduct 2011 has some important things to say about outsourcing – especially in relation to issues such as confidentiality, supervision and practice management – and places the duty upon firms to measure outcomes as an indicator of compliance, confidentiality, supervision and management.
So far as confidentiality is concerned, outcome O(4.1) makes it quite clear that a solicitor must keep the affairs of clients confidential and goes on to state in Indicative Behaviour IB(4.1) that the solicitors’ systems and controls for identifying risks to client confidentiality are appropriate to the size and complexity of the firm or in-house practice and the nature of the work undertaken, and that they enable the solicitor to assess all the relevant circumstances. In other words, the controls must be appropriate to what the firm actually does, and if this includes outsourcing then the controls must assess this too.

This is further reinforced in indicative behaviour IB (4.3) which provides that a solicitor should only outsource services when they are satisfied that the provider has taken all appropriate steps to ensure that the solicitor’s clients’ confidential information will be protected.

It is perhaps worth bearing in mind guidance note 8 to Rule 4 of the Solicitors Code of Conduct 2007 which stated:

“(f) If you outsource services such as word processing, telephone call handling or photocopying you must be satisfied that the provider of those services is able to ensure the confidentiality of any information concerning your clients. This would normally require confidentiality undertakings from the provider and checks to ensure that the terms of the arrangements regarding confidentiality are being complied with. Whilst you might have implied consent to confidential information being passed to external service providers, it would be prudent to inform clients of any such services you propose to use in your terms of business or client care letters.”

Thus, firms planning to outsource any aspect of their work where confidential client information – or even information capable of indicating that the firm acts for a particular client – must take all necessary steps to ensure that those providing the service will keep that information confidential and should ensure that the client is aware – for example through the firm’s terms and conditions – that such outsourcing could take place.

The main requirements in the SRA Code of Conduct in relation to outsourcing are, however, to be found in Chapter 7 which deals with business management.

Whilst outcomes O(7.9) and O(7.10) are the ones which specifically relate to outsourcing, nevertheless provisions which could affect outsourcing are also to be found in outcomes O(7.2),O(7.3), O(7.6), O(7.7) and O(7.8). These largely replace the provisions previously to be found in rule 5 of the 2007 rules.

Outcome O(7.9) provides that a solicitor should not outsource reserved legal activities to a person who is not authorised to conduct such activities – in other words this places a duty upon a solicitor to ensure that anyone to whom reserved activity is outsourced is adequately qualified.

Outcome O(7.10) goes on to provide that where a solicitor outsources legal activities or any operational functions that are critical to the delivery of any legal activities, that they ensure such outsourcing:

1. does not adversely affect their ability to comply with, or the SRA’s ability to monitor the solicitor’s compliance with, their obligations in the Handbook;
2. is subject to contractual arrangements that enable the SRA or its agent to obtain information from, inspect the records (including electronic records) of, or enter the premises of, the third party, in relation to the outsourced activities or functions;
3. does not alter the solicitor’s obligations towards their clients ; and
4. does not cause the solicitor to breach the conditions with which they must comply in order to be authorised and to remain so.

However, the duty to take care goes wider than the provisions contained within these provisions.

Outcome O(7.2) provides that a solicitor must have effective systems and controls in place to achieve and comply with all the Principles, rules and outcomes and other requirements of the Handbook, where applicable. In other words, if the solicitor is outsourcing aspects of their work to a third party, then they must make sure that, for example, confidentiality is maintained, discrimination does not take place and so forth. that may be a difficult requirement to achieve if the provider of the services is many miles distant – possibly even based in a different jurisdiction with different rules and a different culture.

Outcome O(7.3) further reinforces the duty in O(7.2) by requiring the solicitor to “identify, monitor and manage risks to compliance” and to “take steps to address issues identified” – a task which might be difficult to achieve where the solicitor does not have easy access to the premises from which the outsourced work is being undertaken.

Outcomes O(7.6) requires that you train individuals working in the firm to maintain a level of competence appropriate to their work and level of responsibility – which inevitably raises the problem of ensuring that the solicitor satisfies him/her self that those who are undertaking outsourced work are adequately qualified – whilst outcomes O(7.7) and O(7.8) both address issues of supervision – again something which could be problematical when undertaken remotely.

Firms who outsource work must, therefore, ensure that there are sufficient procedures in place to ensure that those responsible for the work – i.e. the partners and senior managers within the outsourcing firm – are able to monitor:

• how it is undertaken,
• by whom it is undertaken,
• the level of expertise of those who undertake it,
• the extent to which those doing the work are supervised at a local level and the qualifications of those supervising,
• the safeguards that are put in place to ensure that it is undertaken securely and confidentially,
• that conflicts of interest do not arise, and
• that criminal activities are not supported by the work.

Finally, firms who are considering outsourcing should also give thought to a number of other issues, including:

• equality and diversity implications – see Chapter 2 of the SRA Code of Conduct – although note the problems that this might raise in cases where what is discriminatory in this jurisdiction may not be in another;
• money laundering prevention measures,
• employment legislation, and in particular the implications for redundancy within the firm, and
• contingency arrangements to ensure that they are able to resource the work being done by the service provider should the agreement with that service provider come to an end.

Conclusion

In conclusion, therefore, there are undoubtedly substantial benefits to be derived for many firms in looking to outsource elements of their work and practice.

The caveat to that, however, is that great care needs to be taken in how and to whom the outsourcing is undertaken.

The risks which we have looked at here are only the regulatory ones. We have made no attempt to look at some of the practical risks such as:

• failing to clarify objectives at the start of the process,
• not setting a starting point against which including costs, benefits and delivery can be measured,
• failing to ascertain necessary changes to internal processes and the impact on other work areas,
• underestimating the impact upon employees and others and not putting in place plans to deal with any morale issues, and
• failing to undertake a full risk analysis.

All of the ten risks set out above need to be looked at closely and firms need to be satisfied that they will be able to control those risks at all stages of the relationship with the organisation to whom the work is outsourced.

Above all else, firms must bear in mind the needs of clients and the requirement for confidentiality, competency of service and trust in the integrity of the legal process. Do not overlook the need to draw to the attention of the company to whom work is outsourced the importance of confidentiality and that there is an adequate confidentiality agreement in place. Tell the client that your firm outsources work and the type of outsourcing that it does, make sure that if there are confidentiality issues that the client is aware of these and above all else ensure that the client does not object.

Contact the Lawyers Defence Group

If you require further information about, or help with, outsourcing then the Lawyers Defence Group can assist you.

For further information, or to contact the Lawyers Defence Group about outsourcing:

• phone on 0333 888 4070;
• email on help [Email address: help #AT# lawyersdefencegroup.org.uk - replace #AT# with @ ];
• request a callback using the form in the right hand menu and someone will call you back at a pre-arranged time;
• write to Lawyers Defence Group, Richard Nelson LLP, Priory Court, 1 Derby Road, Nottingham, NG9 2TA

(revised December 2011)

Guidance on the use of cloud computing has been issued this week by the Law Society of Scotland.

Whilst the availability of such technology has proved to be very popular with businesses including law firms, allowing them to reduce costs and increase flexibility, nevertheless there are potential drawbacks to using such technology, including breach of confidence, lack of security and access problems.

Paul Motion, convener of the Society’s Technology Committee, said that he believed the Society was the first legal regulatory body to issue guidance on cloud services. He went on to say:

“It’s essential that any solicitors considering using cloud computing do their homework to make sure that it meets their needs, both in terms of being able to provide the level of service they require and meeting all their security requirements.

“Many solicitors probably already use some form of cloud computing, for example Hotmail or Gmail and social networking sites, but it is important they analyse how they intend to use the system before choosing a supplier. Anyone considering using cloud technology systems should think about the importance of access to and security of client information to determine how stringent the pre-contract diligence and service legal agreement should be – think of your service level agreement as your insurance policy and be sure it meets your specific needs and ensure that security levels, equipment and connectivity are sufficient.

“Planning ahead is also key. A good cloud supplier will ask about your plans for expansion to ensure that they can provide what you need in the future. You should also establish which services would be included in your subscription costs and those that are additional – and make sure that you know about what back up will be provided if there is any system failure.”

The Society’s guidance on their website at www.lawscot.org.uk/rules-and-guidance/section-e/division-b-the-management-of-files,-papers-and-information/advice-and-information/cloud-computing—advice-for-the-profession

The Bar Council and the Bar Standards Board (BSB) have today published the first full edition of “Bar Barometer”, an annual report produced by the Research Department setting out statistical trends within the Bar.

Intended to help the Bar Council and BSB to develop and implement policies which are relevant to barristers, the Bar Barometer is also intended to act as a source of statistical information for those with an interest in the Bar with each edition will have a different focus – the first edition dealing with statistics on pupillage over the period 2006-2011.

As a result of feedback received from the pilot edition issued last March, the report now provides information about the profile of practitioners by age and disability and for the first time includes the composition of employed Queen’s Counsel by gender and ethnicity.

Chairman of the Bar, Michael Todd QC, said:

“The publication of our annual Bar Barometer report to examine statistical trends within the Bar will help to ensure that the Bar Council’s efforts focus on initiatives which will directly benefit our members. In terms of composition of and retention at the Bar, having ready access to statistics will help us easily to monitor changes as they happen or, even more importantly, where they are not happening quickly enough. This will help us to make better investment decisions and to marshal our resources to safeguard the future of the Bar.”

Bar Barometer can be found online at http://bit.ly/yHm31o.

The Solicitors Regulation Authority (SRA) is reminding solicitors of their responsibilities when canvassing for clients that want help with claiming for mis-sold payment protection insurance (PPI).

The High Court has ordered all those banks guilty of mis-selling PPI to pay back up to £4.5 billion in compensation to customers. Both the Ministry of Justice and Financial Ombudsman Service have provided consumers with detailed information on how to make a claim.

The SRA is aware of a number of firms offering to act for clients in making PPI claims and has issued a guidance note reminding practitioners of their professional duties and the need to decide how their actions adhere to the Principles and Outcomes set out in the SRA Handbook.

Richard Collins, SRA Executive Director, said:

“There is obviously significant interest around the claiming of compensation for mis-sold PPI. Many consumers may find that processing their claim is straight-forward, while others may not. “Understandably, they may want a solicitor’s help and a number of practices are offering their services in this area. Because of this, we felt it might be useful to remind the profession to bear in mind certain points if engaging in work of this kind.”

The guidance reminds practitioners that clients and potential clients:

• are not taken advantage of and do not suffer detriment;
• do not instruct a firm as a result of misleading information or publicity;
• have sufficient information to make informed decisions about instruction; and
• receive independent advice and a proper standard of service.

Richard Collins said:

“As an example of what to watch out for, you may not be achieving the best outcomes for clients if you suggest that, by instructing your firm, clients will obtain a more favourable result than if they claimed themselves. You will need to substantiate any statements made.

“You will also need to ensure any publicity relating to your charges is not misleading, such as where your charges are calculated as a percentage of any “compensation” recovered. And you will need to make clear whether VAT is included and any sums written off by a lender are included in the calculation.”

The guidance note is available at www.sra.org.uk/PPI.

After 30 years of operating a minimum salary for trainees, the SRA has decided that there is no longer any clear evidence that setting a minimum salary fulfills any of the regulatory objectives within the Legal Services Act or encourages freedom of access to the profession.

With this in mind it has decided to consult on whether there should in future be a minimum pay rates for trainees.

Currently the minimum salary level for a trainee solicitor is £18,590 in central London and £16,650 elsewhere.

The SRA’s executive director Samantha Barrass said:

‘We do not regulate prices, including rate of pay, in any other area of our work.

‘We have compared the practice with other professional regulators and found very few examples where this occurs. It would appear that setting a minimum salary does not address any identified risk to the public interest or the rule of law, nor is it clear that it improves access to the profession.’

The consultation, which closes on 10 April, can be found at http://www.sra.org.uk/sra/consultations/review-minimum-salary-trainee-solicitors.page

It was reported in the a Solicitors Journal interview with Ann Morgan, head of the ABS Team at the SRA, that within days of going live, the SRA had received 34 applications – 50 per cent more than had been expected.

The SRA is pinning a great deal on its ability to become the regulator of choice for ABSs. Currently, depending upon the type of work they plan to undertake, ABSs can also apply for recognition through the Council for Licensed Conveyancers and in the future they may have a greater choice – possibly including the Bar Standards Board, ILEX PS and the accountancy regulators.

Aside from the question of whether ABSs are a desirable addition to the legal world or not (and a poll in the Guardian would seem to indicate that almost 70% of those responded thought that they were a mistake), is the SRA, or indeed any other regulator, actually ready to take on the regulation of a very wide and disparate range of legal services providers who appear to be intent on pushing back the boundaries of what constitutes the adequate delivery of legal services. Are the regulators sufficiently attuned to the potential complexities and the possibilities for fraud, inadequate service, confusion and obfuscation that is almost inevitably going to arise?

The experiences of the past few months would suggest not.

The SRA have had more than their fair share of technology hiccups in getting MySRA up and running and the practising certificate renewal problems continue to roll on. Add to that the lack-lustre response from the profession to outcomes-focused regulation, the confusion that is the SRA Handbook, the lack of certainty and clarity that the profession as a whole is experiencing as to what does and does not constitute compliance and the continuing wrangling that is taking place between the Law Society and the SRA as to internal governance arrangements and it can be seen that the there will be many who will doubt the SRA’s ability to manage such a complex process.

Whilst the initial Stage 1 application process which the SRA have put in place for obtaining approval is admirably simple, nevertheless the process as a whole lacks transparency and the fee structure is complex to say the least. Perhaps that is a good thing as it will dissuade all but the most keen of entrepreneurs to apply.

The worrying times, however, will come in the future, when the SRA have regulate what could be a complex organisation with many unregulated parts to it. How successful will they be in getting to the bottom of who does what and how it is undertaken through the regulated and unregulated parts of the ABS.

Only time will tell. I sincerely hope for the reputation of the profession and the protection of the public that they get things right. I suspect that the public will, as ever, judge the legal profession on the basis of its weakest (and highest paid) members and they may be slow to discern the difference between an ABS and a traditional solicitors firm.

The new ways in which law can be practised in the years to come are undoubtedly exciting and present everyone with the opportunity to deliver legal services in new and innovative ways. Let us hope that those opportunities do not get hijacked by those who may not hold the good of the public in such high esteem and that, if they are, that the SRA is able to be vigilant and effective in its response.

Part of the Government’s response to the Public Administration Select Committee report ‘Smaller Government: Shrinking the Quango state’ was a commitment to a triennial review of non-departmental public bodies (NDPB). As part of this process the Ministry of Justice has decided to review the Legal Services Board (LSB) and the Office for Legal Complaints (OLC).

Although the OLC is not an NDPB, it has linkages to the LSB which brings it within the regulatory sphere of legal services and, although the bodies will be subject to individual reviews, they will be carried out in parallel.

The triennial reviews, whihc are expected to take between 3 – 6 months will look, inter alia, at whether an efficient and effective service is being delivered to the public and to ensure that the Government maintains a lean, but effective public sector.

As part of the process, the MoJ is seeking evidence from a wide range of bodies and would particularly welcome hearing from users of the LSB and the OLC.

If you wish to provide written evidence, this can be sent to:

LSB and OLC triennial reviews
Post point 4.19
Ministry of Justice
102 Petty France
London
SW1H 9AJ

The process closes on 30 March 2012