Category Archives: Legal Services Act

ABS two years on: cautiously optimistic

Posted on by

We are just at the second anniversary of licences being issued for alternative business structures (ABSs).  In the first year, about 40 licences were issued, and progress seemed slow. A year later, there are still only two licensing authorities, but there have been roughly another 200 new licences. The licences we expected for Abbey Protection, AIM-listed Quindell, Knights (backed by James Caan), and BT Law have all emerged.  Conveyancing Direct (connected to Connells estate agency and Skipton Building Society) and Jordans (the publisher) have gained licences, as has DAS Law (Bristol law firm acquired by the legal expenses insurer, itself part of insurance giant Munich Re).

The rate of ABS adoption is hotting up.  Or is it?

Continue reading →

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 →

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 →