This month marks the tenth anniversary of the publication of Sir David Clementi’s final report on the regulatory framework for legal services in England & Wales. How time flies! The report is still a good read, and a helpful reminder of what needed to change – and why.
The report laid the foundations for the Legal Services Act 2007 (even though the Act went further on alternative business structures than Sir David was willing to recommend). Its principal aims can be summarised as:
- creating the Legal Services Board and establishing the principle of regulation that is independent from professional representation
- improving the way in which – and the speed with which – complaints against legal services providers are handled, including setting up the Office for Legal Complaints and the Legal Ombudsman
- liberalising the business structures through which lawyers can operate by permitting ownership and investment by individuals who have not qualified as lawyers, and allowing legal businesses access to external capital.
All of these primary objectives have been achieved – more or less. So what now?
Earlier this month, I was invited by the Executive School of Management, Technology and Law at the University of St Gallen in Switzerland to deliver a keynote presentation on the topic of whether ‘client’ or ‘customer’ is a distinction with or without meaning. Although I had mulled this over many times before, this was the first time that I had really given it any sustained thought. I was slightly surprised by my conclusion! I had previously been of the view that it was largely a matter of personal preference (or prejudice), but in the end lawyers sold and – whatever they were called – others bought, and the label didn’t really matter. I’ve now come to the view that it really does matter. Continue reading
Yesterday, I gave a speech at the Westminster Legal Policy Forum about the future for legal services regulation. Part of the question and answer session was reported (identically) by both Solicitors Journal and Managing Partner under the headline ‘Lawyers could have prevented the financial crisis, suggests Stephen Mayson’. I did not say this, did not intend to say it, and the inference (based on what I did say) is completely false. Despite my protestations, neither magazine has so far seen fit to change their story. So here is my response.