One more time: we are NOT deregulating

Posted on by

Time and again I hear (or read) that the Legal Services Act is deregulating the legal services market.  It is not.  Everything that is currently regulated remains so.

It is true that people who are not authorised persons (shorthand = legally qualified) are able to offer legal services that are not reserved activities.  This was true before the Act, which makes no difference to this situation.  So no deregulation there.

It is true that the Act now gives the power for the reserved activities to be changed.  It would therefore be possible for something that is currently regulated through reservation to authorised persons to become deregulated if the activity ceases to be reserved.  But I have heard not a whisper that this is likely to happen.  So no deregulation there, either.

Now, an activity that is presently not reserved could become so (the Legal Services Board is just starting to look at will writing and estate administration).  But that would bring what is presently unregulated – if not done by authorised persons – within the regulatory framework.  So still no deregulation.

Existing regulators – or even new ones looking for approval – can apply to regulate more reserved activities, but that will bring their members within (or more firmly within) regulation.  Still no deregulation.

And finally, people who are not authorised persons can apply to become members of legal disciplinary practices (until the ABS licensing framework comes into play), or members of ABSs, or to be approved as Heads of Finance & Administration (or the SRA-equivalent of Compliance Officers for Finance & Administration), and ABSs as entities will need licences.  In other words, more people who are not currently regulated will have to become regulated in order to operate.  No deregulation.

For the life of me, I can’t find any deregulation.  Perhaps what the ‘deregulators’ are really griping about is the increase in regulated competition.  But that’s a gripe about competition, not deregulation.

I’m left with the feeling that the complaint is really about new regulated competitors who will do things differently.  For the detractors, the issue seems to be the supposed hordes of ‘pile-it-high, sell-it-cheap’ merchants who are going to swamp the market and who will ‘inevitably’ ignore professional standards and produce low-quality services.  To them, ‘different’ couldn’t possibly mean better, more client-friendly, or cost-effective (yes, alright, cheaper).  This difference could be described as ‘liberalisation’, but it’s not deregulation.

The fact is, it’s time to face up to three uncomfortable truths.  First, there is a risk that the future will see more unregulated providers offering non-reserved legal services.  However, that could always have happened, and is not a result of provisions of the Act or a form of deregulation.

Second, there is indeed a risk that the new regulated competitors might rip off their clients, provide poor service or behave unethically.  However, they will be regulated, so the response does not lie in barring their entry or shouting ‘foul’ about their scale or methods, but in the regulators doing their job and taking robust action against the transgressors.

Third, and perhaps most difficult, is accepting that the present regulated community has authorised persons who are not doing a good job.  Sadly, some of them are incompetent, unethical, engaging in criminal activity, misleading clients, overcharging, providing poor service, or running their businesses in ways which would, frankly, be laughable if they weren’t so serious in their consequences.

I know it’s not the majority of practitioners who behave in these reprehensible ways; but for professionals to adopt a ‘holier than thou’ stance, and assert that all new entrants are ‘bound’ to cut corners, behave unethically and sell cheap, low-quality services, hardly does them any favours.  It can only be interpreted as self-serving objection dressed up as concern for clients.  Unfortunately, those same professionals have for years defiantly ignored a mountain of evidence – and still mounting evidence – that they are not delivering what the market or clients really want.  This focus on concern for clients I’m afraid has a hollow ring to it.

Until the professions accept that they are not universally made up of competent, ethical, high-quality, individuals and firms who are of undoubted integrity AND that the new regulated competitors are not inevitably all unruly shysters and charlatans, they are not likely to gain much of a serious hearing about the effects of liberalisation.  After all, the Parliamentary intent is to liberalise.

So, please, no more talk of deregulation.  And because none of us knows how many unethical and poor quality providers there are in the currently regulated community, let’s stop taking cheap shots at new regulated entrants who are collectively likely to have no different a profile to the professions’.  It’s time to get on with the new world rather than seek to deny, defer or avoid it.

If there comes a time when there’s incontrovertible evidence that regulated practitioners and firms have failed in their obligations (rather than just assertions and assumptions that they surely will), and when there’s incontrovertible evidence that the regulators have failed in their duties of identifying and dealing with transgressors (rather than just assertions and assumptions that they surely will), then that will be the time to create a fuss – and, believe me, someone will.

Until then, let’s get on with it, instead of wasting time and energy misdescribing the inevitable.

Postscript: There is also an excellent post by Richard Moorhead on this topic: The Deregulation Debate – My Twopennyworth.

Breaking News: Humpty Dumpty falls off wall …

Posted on by

News just in: “It will come as a shock to many to hear that Humpty Dumpty (also known as the traditional law firm business model) has taken a tumble. Worse still, all the king’s horses and all the king’s men couldn’t put Humpty together again. Yes, it’s true: however you look at it, Humpty is well and truly scrambled.

How could this happen? Well, sources close to the wall from which Humpty fell, say that although he was close enough to the wall to see the writing, he hadn’t actually read it.”

In many ways, the traditional law firm business model has been an accident waiting to happen. For me, a business model is a statement about how the firm coordinates four elements to structure the business and deliver its strategy. They are (a) creating value for clients; (b) resourcing the firm to create that value; (c) financing the firm to secure those resources; and (d) producing and distributing returns on the investment to make it all worthwhile. (For more, see Mayson (2010) Business models in legal services or visit the Downloads section.)

In terms of these four elements, the traditional law firm business model can be expressed in summary as: (a) using a cost-plus, time-based, lawyer-focused charging structure (which often bears no relation to value to the client; (b) a lawyer-driven human leverage model with as many resources as possible internalised within the firm; (c) finance provided by internal equity (partners) and external debt (banks and asset finance) – though much of the internal equity is often also the result of bank lending – and all managed within a partnership structure and culture characterised by confused roles, disdain for professional (that is, effective) management, and inefficient decision-making; and (d) returns created by growing turnover (rather than managing for profit) with rewards extracted entirely as income, usually within 12 months of earning them.

The message that Humpty missed was that, on all four elements, the traditional law firm business model is broken. So to those who say, “If it ain’t broke, don’t fix it”, I say: it is broke, so get on with fixing it as quickly as you can.

On the first element, creating value for clients can’t be done on a cost-plus model, time-based pricing, or where creating value is confused with adding value (most clients really don’t care about legal updates). But negotiate a better deal or outcome for them, or make their personal or business lives easier, and then you’re on track. Understand where the firm sits in the supply and value chain, and who else is claiming part of the value paid by way of fees for legal services, and then work out where the real value lies to the client and deliver it.

For the second element, neither employing lots of qualified lawyers to do things lawyers don’t have to do, nor using people to produce bespoke outcomes when technology or processes could give more consistent, reliable or cheaper results, represents a sensible route to 21st century resourcing for productivity and cost-efficiency. Nor does insisting on doing everything inside the firm when outsourcing or joint venturing are viable alternatives.

The third element relates to finding feasible sources of investment. When firms have been removing under-performing equity partners (who want their capital back) and postponing promotions (and so not admitting new sources of capital), internal equity capital is in shorter supply and debt capacity is constrained by the reduction of people to back the borrowing. Although banks have not stopped lending to law firms, debt is not so easily available and now tends to come with stricter terms and covenants than it used to. Alternative financing (including external public debt as well as public and private equity) should not be lightly dismissed with a wave of the hand and “we don’t need it and we don’t want it”. Maybe firms don’t want it; that doesn’t mean they won’t need it. And it doesn’t mean they’re fit for investment when they do decide they need and want it.

Law firm governance and structure also need reworking to provide better decision-making processes, more disciplined businesses with skilled and effective managers (I don’t much mind whether they are lawyers or not so long as they can do the job), and more attractive vehicles for investment, recruitment and retention. The professional partnership is an increasingly inappropriate vehicle for this. In business terms, professional partnerships are really not that special, and maybe it’s time we stopped exempting them from the requirement to incorporate when they have more than 20 partners (though in Humpty’s case, it will need more than a shell company to fix the problem!).

Finally, the returns need improving and re-thinking. Any business that takes its entire returns as current income is completely missing the point of being in business. Effective business models will differentiate income and capital returns, short-term and long-term rewards, and salaries, bonuses and dividends (whatever labels are applied to them).

And so the breaking news story concluded: “It is remarkable that Humpty Dumpty was able to stay on the wall for so long, and his downfall certainly represents the end of an era. We can’t say that he wasn’t warned. The writing is still on the wall, and it’s not too late to avoid falling off and creating a mess. But then you know what they say about needing to crack a few eggs to make an omelette. The future certainly needs a new recipe.”

Does my BUT look big in this?

Posted on by

As we move closer to October, I have an increasing sense that the reality of change is hitting home. Nevertheless, there are still some nay-sayers and delaying tactics in evidence. Here are the common objections, along with my response.

“I didn’t become a lawyer to be a businessperson”
Maybe you didn’t, BUT that’s what it takes in the 21st century, so if you don’t want to do it, don’t: shut up shop.

“I can’t make enough money from what I’m doing”
You’re right, and I sympathise, BUT to make more you need to change what you’re doing or how you’re doing it. You won’t make enough from doing the same things in the same old way.

“The Law Society should do more to represent us and protect us”
To whom and from whom? You have a point about your representative body, BUT remember that there are members who welcome the changes and the opportunities right across the spectrum of size, type of practice and geography, and there are many clients who are desperate for more relevant, accessible, user-friendly and cost-effective legal services. There are a lot of disparate and conflicting views to represent!

“The SRA should protect us from competition”
Wrong: that’s not part of a regulator’s job. BUT what the regulator should do is create a regulatory playing field that’s level (in the sense that all those who fall within the regulated community should be subject to the same ‘rules of the game’).

“It’s not fair, though, because we can’t compete on equal terms”
You’re probably right. The regulatory playing field might be level, but the competitive one isn’t if others have more reach, more resources, better technology, closer contact with consumers, and so on. BUT that’s what competition is about – winners and losers. Find your competitive advantage by offering something that’s more meaningful and valuable to your clients, and you won’t lose them to anyone else. That’s fair, isn’t it?

“We’re too small to invest in technology and marketing”
You might be right, BUT you do have the opportunity to combine with others to offer a broader or deeper range of services and provide a platform to investment and development. Do it.

“We act for vulnerable clients, and they won’t be able to afford access to justice if we pull out”
This might be true, BUT it’s a political issue, not a regulatory one. The advent of ABSs is not inherently likely to reduce access to justice or quality (and might improve both); and the regulatory objectives in the Legal Services Act require us all to work to improve access to justice.

“ABSs don’t offer anything to me; and I don’t want to grow, or be managed by someone else, or have external funding”
It’s your right to make that choice, BUT what you want and what you need aren’t necessarily the same thing. The days of being the only arbiter of how you’re in business are now behind us.