Author Archives: Stephen Mayson

Legal services regulation review

Posted on by

First, my apologies to followers who have been waiting for almost a year for another ‘occasional’ thought.  I won’t burden you with the personal and professional reasons for the lull!

I confess to being rather surprised when the Ministry of Justice announced that it was undertaking a comprehensive review of the framework for legal services regulation.  It is not that long since the Clementi Review (although I suppose that if a week is a long time in politics, nine years could be a very long time in legal services).  But we are still in the implementation phase of the Legal Services Act, and just shy of two years since the arrival of alternative business structures.  Surely too early?

Continue reading →

Law firm partnership: the Grand Delusion

Posted on by

It might not feel like it to some, but the economic environment for large law firms has been benign for a long time. It has been difficult not to make money. According to Legal Business, the top 100 UK law firms (that is, less than 1% of the 10,000 or so in the UK), still manage to gross over £17.5 billion, even in these supposedly tough economic times. That’s at least 50% of the total value of the legal economy. And for the more than 8,000 equity partners in those firms, this produced an average net profit share (PEP) of almost £650,000. By most people’s reckoning (even in the world of clients), that’s a lot of money for a lot of people – and it is only an average. It’s not so much the size of any individual reward that’s the issue (the range is reported as £138,000 to £1,840,000 – and it’s no longer Slaughter and May, or any other Magic Circle firm, at the top): rather, it’s the sheer number of people who are able to extract this level of averaged reward in a reactive service market that is dependent on client activity.

Continue reading →

ABS one year on: rushing headlong, slowly

Posted on by

Here we are, then, one year into alternative business structures (ABSs). For those who were expecting a revolution, the start to ABSs has been, well, muted. But was revolution ever a reasonable expectation? The statutory timetable envisages a licensing process that could take up to nine months. The SRA has also ensured that the timetable doesn’t start to run with the submission of a stage 1 application, so its nine-month timeline hasn’t been reached yet. The question is: does 36 ABS licences (ignoring the multiple licences issued to Irwin Mitchell) in the first year represent a good outcome, slow take-up by the market, or slow processing by the regulators? Has the whole thing – as many opponents of ABS would like us to believe – been a damp squib, an unnecessary and expensive addition to the regulatory terrain?

Continue reading →