Cab Rank Rule Redux....

Since the Legal Services Board published our report on the Cab Rank Rule on 22 January we've had many comments coming in on the discussion boards. They are not all negative, though many are.

I wanted to give some of the flavour of what is coming our way. We expected it of course. The first article to appear was in the Law Society Gazette (the solicitors' journal not barristers') which has garnered many comments. I have tried replying to a few. Catherine Baksi gave a good summary of the papers. Here are some of the comments:

The latest idiocy

Submitted by Interested observer on Tue, 22/01/2013 - 15:01.

The fact that a fundamental principle is not understood by the market place is no reason for abolishing it.

This is a sensible step

Submitted by Disinterested observer on Tue, 22/01/2013 - 15:07.

This is a sensible step forward. Most other countries do not have this silly rule. Indeed, some other countries view this rule as entirely unethical. This will level the playing field and allow people to receive better representation, and allow lawyers to openly restrict themselves to cases they actually take.

There is no point in having a rule that is not enforced, unenforceable and not generally supported merely because a minority does.

And what is to happen the

Submitted by Andrew on Tue, 22/01/2013 - 16:18.

And what is to happen the first time a Defendant accused of some really nasty offence - Huntley, or the man who killed Millie Dowler - cannot find representation because every lawyer approached reckons it will cost more work than it is worth?

The defendants accused of

Submitted by Anonymous on Tue, 22/01/2013 - 16:34.

The defendants accused of really nasty offences that are media worthy will not have a problem getting representation because that is exactly the kind of high-level exposure that criminal barristers want. Such exposure is not only fun to have, but also increases business.

Working around the Cab Rank

Submitted by Tim Child on Tue, 22/01/2013 - 17:27.

I have never had a barrister outright refuse a case, and as a matter of principle I would only ever send instructions/brief to a barrister who I would expect to take the case unless given very specific instructions by my client as to who he/she/it wishes to use.

I have, however, had an experience where the fee demanded by my client's chosen barrister was deliberately priced so high that my client couldn't possibly afford it. The clerk was absolutely open about it - saying that this eminent barrister regularly advised the other party to the dispute and, while on this occasion there was as yet no conflict, he would need a substantial fee to justify subsequently having to turn away the other work that he expected to be offered.

In other words, not quite "No thanks, don't fancy your client.", but as near as dammit.

Modern academia

Submitted by faithless on Wed, 23/01/2013 - 09:29.

Yes, this is what we expect from the half-educated half-wits who become professors nowadays. "The rule is imperfect, so it must obviously be abolished."

Might as well abandon the whole of criminal law, then, since that doesn't punish let alone convict a significant proportion of perpetrators.

What might happen if the rule was abolished altogether has been recently illustrated in India, where the Bar has rushed to announce that it will have nothing to do with defending those beyond-the-pale men charged with the rape and murder of the student on the bus. After all, why imperil your career or endanger your family for fear of reprisals against your representation of such obviously unworthy objects of legal attention?

Since then we had an article by the "Chief Officers' Network" which concluded,

So, there it is, then. More jobs for the boys: a consultation that means that there will be more time and money spent.

So let's save both: listen very carefully.

THE CAB RANK RULE DOES NOT WORK. IT HAS NOT WORKED FOR AT LEAST 25 YEARS. SCRAP IT. AND DON'T SPEND A FORTUNE DECIDING WHETHER TO REPLACE IT AND IF SO WITH WHAT. IT'S A FREE MARKET, IT OPERATES LIKE A FREE MARKET AND HAS DONE SO WITH SUCCESS FOR A LONG TIME. REMOVE THE FAKE RESPECTABILITY AND LEAVE IT ALONE.

And next time you want a proper opinion, ask a lawyer. Hell, ask me: I'll do it in a fraction of the time, for a fraction of the cost.

One of the best write ups came from Dan Bindman at Legal Futures. No comments there but it had been tweeted extensively.

We've thrown the stone in the pond, let's see where the ripples end up. The Bar has begun but as the Law Gazette said, 

Chair of the Bar Standards Board Baroness Ruth Deech said: ‘We will analyse the report with interest but we are clear that removing this fundamental principle would send out a dangerous message.

‘The cab rank rule protects barristers who take unpopular causes and reassures the public that they are entitled to representation even if their case is controversial in nature.

‘The rule has served the public and the standing of British law well for centuries we have no evidence that it does any harm.’

Cab Rank Rule Redux....

Why Do We Need the Legal Services Board?

Public bodies such as the Legal Services Board have to undergo triennial reviews to see if they should continue and if so in what form. 2012 is the LSB's turn.

The Ministry of Justice is the reviewer and has held some seminars to canvass views among those interested. I am interested so I have just submitted my views on the future role of the LSB. They focus on research and coordination. This latter point will appeal to those who have read Steven Lukes' little but invaluable book, Power: A Radical View. I consider the LSB to embody the ideas of the second and third dimensions of power as Lukes represents them. It is not domination as such but the ability to create environments where the participants want to engage in collective action. If one can set the agenda, that's far more powerful than merely telling someone to do something.

Here are my views. My statement is short and relates to the role of the LSB in coordination and research.

Let me take coordination first. Contrary to the way we speak there is no single legal profession but a set of professions that have varied in type and number over the centuries. For example, there were approximately 12 legal professions in the 15th century. Apart from the judiciary and some parts of government, there has not been any significant coherent regulation of the legal professions until recent times. One result is that different professions saw themselves as competing fiefdoms fighting over turf, eg, rights of audience in the courts, control of judicial appointments and control of conveyancing. These turf battles have generally favoured the professions' self-interest at the expense of the client's interests. This is not to say that legal professions have not done magnificent work in areas like pro bono and legal aid.

Although there have been reviews of the legal services market and professions before, any attempts at reform have been piecemeal and resisted strenuously by the professions. Indeed the OFT reports on professions through the Clementi Review to the Legal Services Act 2007 represent the first major wholesale analysis and reform of the professions and their regulation. The Legal Services Act has introduced a systematic process of regulation that allows for degrees of self-regulation to command and control where necessary. At the same time it has opened up the framework of the legal services market and introduced, in a formal way, the greater participation of "non-lawyers" as active producers in this market.

These are tremendous changes running counter to centuries of tradition. It takes time for such change to bed down and be accepted. For lawyers to realize they are one of several "producers" in the legal services market as opposed to the only participants is shocking. The results of these changes and shocks to the system are profound and as such require managing. They cannot be left to chance alone. The problem of management is a subtle and delicate one that must manage expectations and potentialities.

The present setup is fragmented and based on traditional divisions between different professions. There is nothing wrong in this as it reflects the situation we are faced with. It does, however, mean that the differences and distinctions between the professions continue to resonate in the market. Turf battles have not disappeared; they have been reconstructed. Not only are the Approved Regulators asked to regulate their own professions and activities but in some cases--where ABS are concerned--other professionals. One of the risks inherent in this situation is that of regulatory arbitrage, which should be best avoided.

To achieve a coherent regulatory process takes time and continuing communication among the different parts. Experience shows us that without the intermediation of a knowledgeable body this communication may only be partial at best. In part the role of the LSB is to act as an intermediary to ensure the Approved Regulators adhere to the letter and spirit of the Regulatory Objectives laid out in the Legal Services Act.

The role then of the Legal Services Board is to facilitate communication, consistency and coherence between the Approved Regulators, and to ensure the legal services market serves the needs of consumers and the public interest. The changes being wrought in the legal services market are creating challenges never hitherto faced by the professions. New providers, new organizational structures, and new modes of delivery need proper coordination across the differing regulatory structures which the intercession of the LSB can help deliver.

The introduction of Alternative Business Structures is a case in point. There was much speculation about whether the introduction of ABS would imitate the "Big Bang" in financial services. Clearly this has not occurred but the drive towards ABS is gathering speed. These are unknown quantities which lawyers have not traditionally had to contend with. Without the facilitation of the LSB the ABS process would have been strewn with obstacles. Besides encouragement the LSB possesses powers to compel where obstacles resist removal. The possession of such power is often sufficient in itself to smooth out implementation.

From this perspective the role of the LSB is to exercise power in a way that does not coerce or cajole but rather sets the agenda and determines the environment of the debates needed. This is not brute force; it is engagement and it is what makes the LSB so valuable. It is also what makes the LSB necessary. The constitution of the Approved Regulators will not support these processes. Until they have matured (and the legal services market) and fully adapted to their roles, they require the presence of the LSB, however welcome they consider it.

I now turn to research. Previous incarnations of the Approved Regulators, eg, the Law Society and Bar Council, have from time to time undertaken research on the professions and legal markets. It has not been a sustained process. We need more research on the legal services market to understand how it works, what it does, who its occupants are and so on. I have been engaged in research in this area for some years, but I realize we need more. One of the key services of the Legal Services Board has been to engage in research, both as research funder and as facilitator. This is invaluable. In the few years of the LSB's existence research on the professions and the legal services market has increased dramatically. Moreover, the LSB has taken on the role of analysing the research done and attempted to systematize it so we can see the gaps. Legal services are no different from medical services in that decisions about the allocation of resources, what constitutes the proper operation of the market and its providers are best taken on the basis of evidence rather than conjecture or anecdote. We know from earlier reviews and reports little sustained research was done which created doubts about the quality of decisionmaking.

The Legal Services Board's explicit aim to make all research available is to be applauded and will help to dispel many of the mists that enwrap the provision of legal services. The Approved Regulators have not yet sought to take on this role and therefore the LSB is necessary and will continue to be so for some time yet.

I am therefore convinced the Legal Services Board should continue in its present incarnation. Without it the legal services market would be diminished.

Why Do We Need the Legal Services Board?

The Future of the Legal Services Board....

Neil Rose at Legal Futures discusses whether or not the Legal Services Board is needed or not, or at least in the future. He points out that it is on the list of schedule 7 of the Public Bodies Bill (the bonfire of the quangos). What he doesn't point out is that the bill is not sailing smoothly through parliamentary waters and schedule 7 may yet be breached and sink.

The UK coalition came into power promising to cut government waste--well, don't they all?--and compiled a list of "useless" quangos. Schedule 7 is a list of possibles. Besides the LSB it includes in the legal sector the Legal Services Commission which deals with legal aid and other access to justice issues, and the Civil Justice Council and the Criminal Cases Review Commission. (And in the spirit of disclosure the Arts and Humanities Research Council for which I review and decide on fundable research projects is also on the list.)

Of course as comes clear in Neil's article is that the Law Society and by extension, the Bar Council, would love to see the LSB disappear. Why? The LSB is finally holding the legal profession to account, something which has been needed for many years. Moreover, the professional associations haven't been able to regulate their own groups with any great success for the public or consumer interest.

The Legal Services Board may be new but in its short career it has managed to put diversity in the profession so clearly on the agenda that it can't be any longer ignored. It is the first of the regulatory groups to take a rational approach to regulation in the legal profession. Stephen Mayson's paper on reserved activities demonstrates that the legal profession isn't too adverse to taking advantage of historical accident.

The legal profession has shown itself to be dangerously complacent at times. It is too important to permit that to occur so we need institutions whose task it is to rattle a few cages.

---------------------------------------------------------------

Coda: Two other quangos for which government has no time are the UK Film Council, which in this its final year is reaping the benefits of a BAFTA and potential Oscar winner, The King's Speech, produced for less than £10m. The second is the Forestry Commission. The government came up with the truly daft idea of selling our woodlands to private developers who would somehow promise to keep them open for public use. Last time woodlands were sold the public were locked out. There's been such a public stink over this that the government is rethinking, ie. forgetting it.

The Future of the Legal Services Board....

Research Does Have Impact

(thanks to Northern Arizona University)

The Legal Services Board has today published a paper published a consultation paper on its diversity priorities. The paper sets out its case thus:

This paper discusses our policy proposals in relation to increasing diversity and social mobility at all levels of the legal services workforce. It focuses on the role of providers (firms and chambers) and approved regulators in this process, and does not  directly address the separate but related issues of:

ensuring access to legal services for diverse groups of consumers the potential for reforms to the existing framework for legal education and training, which could create additional opportunities to open a career in legal services to the widest possible pool of talent.

What I find cheering about this is that it is based on the recommendations made by my colleagues' recent research on diversity. It's great to see a regulator taking care to make evidence-based decisions.

The consultation is open to 9 March 2011 and all responses are welcomed.

Research Does Have Impact

Legal Regulators To Investigate Legal Education and Training--So What?

(thanks to starpulse.com)

Legal Futures reports that the three main legal regulators--Solicitors Regulation Authority, Bar Standards Board, ILEX Professional Standards--are to "review" legal education and training. The aim is to calibrate legal education against the objectives in the Legal Services Act.

All in all, a laudable initiative.

I just wish that was all there was to it. I recently went to a symposium on the teaching of legal ethics in the UK where a disturbing subtext ran throughout. It is that law schools are producing too many law graduates for the legal services market. Both the Law Society and the Bar Council have been assiduously promoting this view.

Let me state my position: it's pernicious. The reasoning isn't difficult. In a variety of ways the legal profession has desperately clung to the idea of enforced closure as a way of maintaining its privileges. These having come under attack, rightly so, through the LSA and the enlightened oversight of the Legal Services Board, are no longer sustainable.

So, who else can be assigned the blame for the woes of the profession? The law schools are next on the list.

Law schools are on the whole part of the university system and have a range of values and ideals to pursue. But they aren't the servants of the legal profession. That is only one of their stakeholders.

In fact if the legal profession and its bodies engaged more fully with the academy we could have a real dialogue instead of one based on "evidence-lite soundbites" by profession leaders. The UK legal profession falls behind the US in this regard.

The academy doesn't produce too many graduates: the market isn't sufficiently liberalized to take them. Despite that, I think the regulators' review has the potential to engage all those concerned in legal education and the profession in a serious, thoroughgoing, rational investigation and debate.

At least I hope so.

Legal Regulators To Investigate Legal Education and Training--So What?

Will There Be Diversity in the Legal Profession?

The Westminster-Legal Services Board workshop on diversity was a great success. Around 100 people attended the presentation of the new research commissioned by the Legal Services Board. The workshop was organized by the Law School's Centre for the Legal Profession and Legal Services. You can download the full report and summary from here.

Researchers Liz Duff and Lisa Webley from Westminster, Daniel Muzio and Jennifer Tomlinson from Leeds, Hilary Sommerlad from Leicester, and Anna Zimdars from Manchester presented in-depth, qualitative research that illustrated people's feelings about discrimination and diversity in the legal profession. It wasn't too depressing as Chris Kenny, CEO of the LSB, showed that trends were improving--it's just that we need to know more why the profession hasn't fully come to terms with the problems.

The presentation was followed by a discussion panel composed of David Pittaway QC of the Bar Council, Stephen Ward of the Law Society, Crispin Passmore of the LSB, and Andy Boon of the Law School.

Neil Rose reported on the research and conference at Legal Futures. He noted:

Launching the London conference, LSB chief executive Chris Kenny said diversity was a key LSB objective. “We believe passionately that unless you’ve got a diverse profession, a profession that looks like the society which it serves, actually you probably won’t have a fully effective profession either.”

Crispin Passmore, strategy director for the LSB, also wrote in the Guardian:

The LSB is working to increase transparency about the makeup of the legal workforce. We're considering requiring law firms and chambers to publish and report the findings of regular surveys of their workforces in order to shine a light on the diversity of the profession. Some law businesses will already reflect their local community. Others will rightly take credit for improving diversity.

 It's clear more work needs to be done in this area.

Will There Be Diversity in the Legal Profession?

Diversity Workshop at Westminster 13 October--You Are Invited

(Thanks to Richard Thomson in Guardian from Notting Hill Carnival 2010)

A while back I wrote about my colleagues' research project on diversity in the legal profession for the Legal Services Board (LSB). At last that research is completed. A multi-faceted team from the Universities of Westminster, Leeds, and Leicester have submitted their report to the LSB.

We, at Westminster, are holding a seminar/workshop for the launch of the report. Here's a brief clip of what to expect:

The seminar is being held to launch a new research report commissioned by the Legal Services Board on diversity in the legal profession. There have been dramatic changes in the legal profession in the last 20 years. In 2008-09 women made up 46% of practising solicitors and 60% of entrants to the profession. For the Bar the figures were 34% (women barristers) and 50% (women entrants). In the case of black and minority ethnic lawyers there has been a 244% increase in their numbers in the ten years between 1996 and 2006. Despite these increases the legal profession is still dominated by white males. There is a greater division with white lawyers being over-represented in City law firms and at the Bar, while BME lawyers are found in greater numbers in smaller High Street law firms.

The research examines the causes for these differences, their persistence and what strategies are available to change cultures and expectations. Despite the implementation of procedures meant to neutralize discrimination, they are easily bypassed. Interviewers raise inappropriate questions about ethnicity, gender, and background. For those in the profession work was allocated unfairly and to question this was deprecated.

The biggest obstacle was the culture of informality that made it difficult for people to raise problems or question established ways of working. Moreover, racial stereotyping was pervasive.

Even though many law firms are trying hard to counter these inequities, the majority still abide by them.

(thanks to idsgn.org)

On October 13 the University of Westminster and the Legal Services Board are hosting a workshop/seminar to launch the report and discuss it.

The research team--Liz Duff (Westminster), Daniel Muzio (Leeds), Hilary Sommerlad (Leicester), Jenny Tomlinson (Leeds), Lisa Webley (Westminster), along with Anna Zimdars (Manchester)--will present their findings.

This will be followed by a panel discussion and questions with David Pittaway QC (Bar Council), Pat Corcoran and Stephen Ward (Law Society), Crispin Passmore (Legal Services Board) and Andy Boon (Westminster). I will be moderating.

It should be a lively and intriguing time. You are all invited.

DATE: October 13
TIME: 1500--1800
PLACE: Fyvie Hall, University of Westminster, 309 Regent St, London W1B 2UW (Streetmap link)

(thanks to chrisjfry)

Diversity Workshop at Westminster 13 October--You Are Invited

Diversity in the Legal Profession?

(Thanks to Karishma Daswani)

Neil Rose at Legal Futures reports that the Legal Services Board (LSB) is to compel law firms and barristers' chambers to disclose information on diversity, which would encompass:

• age
• disability
• gender
• race
• religion or belief
• sexual orientation
• working patterns
• social mobility

This should come into effect in February 2011. And not before time.

My colleagues Lisa Webley and Liz Duff have been doing research on this, in conjunction with scholars from Leeds, for the LSB. Their report is due shortly and at Westminster we will be holding a seminar on this on 13 October. My guess is that their findings will not make happy reading for the profession.


This is an aspect of the legal profession which has remained under-researched and misunderstood for a long time. Both solicitors and the Bar have been reluctant to provide figures, except in aggregate, on gender and ethnicity. We do know that there are severe distortions in numbers between entry to law school and those in practice.

Lawyers and the legal profession have been good at portraying themselves as meritocratic and having removed the last traces of noblesse oblige. Yet without the statistics how do we know?

Discussion groups on Linked In have been grumbling about "heavy-handed" regulation from the LSB over having to collect and disclose this information. But they have only themselves to blame for not taking the lead and actively seeking to resolve the problems endemic in the profession.

Unfortunately when it comes to change the legal profession is snail-like. And this is one of the reasons the Legal Services Board exists--to overcome the inertia of the profession. Maybe it will begin to get the message, if it's prepared to listen. But....

Diversity in the Legal Profession?

What is the Legal Services Board For?

As I looked for images to insert in this post, my search brought up two that seemed out of kilter with my theme, but nevertheless here they are....

This Australian lawyer has been fighting a move by the Victorian Legal Services Board to remove her license to practise. In this photo she is posing for GQ magazine, just as most lawyers do...

At least this one popped up on the Legal Futures blog in reference to the LSB.

However, the real purpose of this post was to consider a negative opinion on Lawcompli.com about the value of the Legal Services Board. The introductory paragraph sets the tone:

Some may wonder what use the LSB is.  Some have called for it to kill itself off once ABS’s are introduced next year.  All must want it to prove its value as well as its value for money.  It risks adding little of value, for either the consumer or the profession. 

I fundamentally disagree with this view. First, I should declare my interest that I am a member of the LSB's Research Strategy Group.

To most observers it is clear that in the case of some professions--law, accounting, medicine, for example--self-regulation has failed. It has failed to protect clients/consumers and it has failed to open up the professions to all who wish to join. In the classic formulation the professions have ensured the continuance of protection of production of producers by producers and the protection of production by producers.

The last 30 years have intensified the call for external regulation. Now that the legal trade bodies, eg. the Law Society and the Bar Council, have had to separate off their regulatory arms (the Solicitors Regulation Authority and the Bar Standards Board), we needed a system to ensure that they carried out their regulatory responsibilities properly and in accordance with clearly defined principles.

The Legal Services Act 2007 set out those regulatory objectives and it is worth revisiting them.

They are:

1. protecting and promoting the public interest
2. supporting the constitutional principles of the rule of law
3. improving access to justice
4. protecting and promoting the interest of consumers
5. promoting competition in the provision of services
6. encouraging an independent, strong, diverse and effective legal profession
7. increasing public understanding of the citizen's legal rights and duties
8. promoting and maintaining adherence (by authorised persons) to the professional principles

While the legal profession itself promoted some of these, there were others that received a fairly lukewarm reception. This is one of the reasons why it was considered necessary for there to be an independent regulator not beholden to any legal interests to oversee the implementation of these objectives. Hence the Legal Services Board.

If we examine the current state of regulation it appears ad hoc, random, and even accidental. Take the divisions between the roles of barristers and solicitors. There is no fundamental reason for them except historical accident and a series of turf wars during the 19th and 20th centuries.

Indeed, pretty much most of the regulation is in this form. Take reserved activities:

• the exercise of rights of audience (ie appearing as an advocate before a court)
• the conduct of litigation (ie managing a case through its court processes)
• reserved instrument activities (ie dealing with the transfer of land or property under specific legal provisions)
• probate activities (ie handling probate matters for clients)
• notarial activities (ie work governed by the Public Notaries Act 1801)
• the administration of oaths (ie taking oaths, swearing affidavits etc).

There is no rational justification for why the list has to be composed of these activities and not others. Again, it's historical accident which has been continued.

What we haven't done yet, despite the OFT reports on the professions, the Clementi Review, and the Legal Services Act, is to undertake a rational review of the purpose of regulation. What is it for? What should be regulated? What doesn't need to be regulated? How should regulation be justified? What form should it take?


Fortunately, this is one of the tasks the Legal Services Board has taken on. Without this kind of fundamental thinking the regulatory apparatus and thinking will continue its haphazard way. And so will the kinds of views put forward by Lawcompli.com above. The Legal Services Board gives us the opportunity to stand back and frame a rational and contemporary system of regulation that will serve both consumers and producers in a complex and globalizing world.

What is the Legal Services Board For?

The ABA Gets It Right and the LSB Doesn't?

(Thanks to ABA)

Jonathan Goldsmith of the CCBE has an interesting article in the Law Society Gazette, "Some lessons for the Legal Services Board".

The gist of his piece is that the American Bar Association's 20/20 Commission on Ethics is part of a measured and open approach to discussing and opening up legal services to global competition. They are taking 3 years to analyze, sift, and formulate proposals for the ABA House of Delegates to vote on.

Goldsmith is positively rapturous at the openness of the process, its willingness to engage, its measuredness. By contrast he portrays the Legal Services Board as the new kid on the block, eager to impress, importunate even, and hasty.

Let's go behind some of the rhetoric here. The ABA has been around many years and serves a good function, but it's a second order association. It has no direct power, something Goldsmith doesn't mention until near the end of his article. You could miss it. The ABA recommends. But the ABA is conservative and the House of Delegates is not known for being radical in its decisions. So is the 20/20 commission a talking shop designed to push away awkward decisions? Probably, and I say that knowing friends on the commission are working hard. The ABA has come to this question of opening up legal services late in the day. But it's playing a slow catch up.

The LSB has not sprung up from nowhere. It's the result of almost 10 years work by regulators, anti-competition officials, consumer representatives, government reviews in the face of obfuscation by the legal profession. All of which have involved extensive consultation, including contributions from the CCBE. I've written much on this (search for Clementi, Legal Services Act, alternative business structures for more) and I won't repeat it here.

The LSB has been formally in existence from January 2010 and in that time it has achieved much, often in the face of opposition from legal profession representative bodies who have been slow to act. Did you know, for example, that the diversity officials from the Law Society and the Bar Council hadn't met until introduced to each other by the LSB? The LSB has to act and act firmly. It can't dither, which is what Goldsmith seems to want.

The LSB is, however, committed to transparency. You can find all its publications on its website. The business plan, the consultations, the research, they're all there. It has been holding regular seminars with academics, regulators, professionals and others. I know because I've attended a number.

As to research, the LSB has put together a Research Strategy Group of which I'm a member. One thing we are clear on is that all research will be published. I hope the legal profession takes this on board. As yet I'm not fully convinced it has. If we are to understand the role and structure of the legal profession and its place in access to justice, then it must welcome and collaborate in research with no areas off-limits. The LSB will play a great part in bringing this about.

So Goldsmith is disingenuous. He's overplayed the ABA and underplayed the role and activities of the LSB. The CCBE is going to have to adapt to a more globalized world that sees the legal profession as part of a wider spectrum of legal service providers.

PS. A couple of hours after I posted this I received an email from Alex Roy, the research manager at the LSB, announcing that the LSB website now has an active research section available here.

The ABA Gets It Right and the LSB Doesn't?

Regulator Reviews Research

For the last three months the legal services market and legal profession has has a new regulator, the Legal Services Board (LSB). The LSB has been radical, fresh and stimulating in its approach to its tasks. (You can see its business plan here.) Under the Legal Services Act 2007 the legal profession (and market) is being shaken up in ways never before envisaged and the LSB has an important role in steering those changes.

One feature that has impressed me about the LSB has been its commitment to research. This has now been cemented by the establishment of a Research Strategy Group within the LSB to guide the LSB in this area. The LSB has invited me to be a member of this group and we have our first meeting soon.

There is no better time to be doing research in this area!

Regulator Reviews Research

The Legal Services Board Has Spoken

The Legal Services Board has announced that the first  Alternative Business Structures will be able to apply for licences in mid-October 2011. For English lawyers this will be the dawning of a new age. For the Master of the Rolls (the head of our civil appeals court) this is the slippery slope to the fusion of barristers and solicitors. Maybe, or maybe the differences will be less defined. Whichever way it goes specialization will take care of what skills are needed.

The LSB quotes some interesting statistics from the Office of National Statistics on the legal profession.

The legal profession currently consists of some 16,455 barristers, 112,246 solicitors and 12,200 individuals authorised to operate in other aspects of the legal profession such as conveyancing. The sector has been valued at £25.97 billion per annum. In total the legal sector employed 323,000 individuals in 2008. [ONS]

With this kind of money and the numbers of people involved in legal services, there is plenty of incentive for some creative thinking in this future market. Now, question: will it be a matter of who gets there first or will the fast second ultimately win?

The Legal Services Board Has Spoken

What Makes the Legal Profession Diverse--Or Not?

 

(Thanks to John Adams Institute)

Drivers behind the diversity experience of the legal market in England and Wales. 

This research project funded by the Legal Services Board seeks to explore the experiences of women and Black and Minority Ethnic (BME) groups in the legal profession. In particular we are concerned with the following research questions:

• To what extent do women and BME professionals experience different opportunities within the legal labour market, as a result of informal and formal practices?
• What are the decisive drivers affecting the career and life choices of women and BME practitioners?
• Do career patterns and opportunities for women and BME lawyers differ according to labour market location (eg CPS, in-house, private practice) and if so, how and why?
• What are the policy responses of employing organisations, institutions and individuals to the diversity gap within the legal professions?

This project is a collaboration between academics at Leeds Metropolitan University, the University of Leeds and the University of Westminster. For further details please contact any member of the team.

Prof Hilary Sommerlad Leeds Metropolitan University H.sommerlad@leedsmet.ac.uk
Dr Daniel Muzio University of Leeds dm@lubs.leeds.ac.uk	Dr Jennifer Tomlinson University of Leeds jt@ubs.leeds.ac.uk
Ms Liz Duff University of Westminster duffl@westminster.ac.uk	Dr Lisa Webley University of Westminster l.webley@westminster.ac.uk

What Makes the Legal Profession Diverse--Or Not?

Do You Know What Lawyers Do?

(Thanks to rutty)

When I lived in the East End of London, I acted as a kind of bush lawyer for my neighbours. All sorts of problems came up: how to keep disability benefits going; how to get a new license for a pub; how to deal with a stolen credit card; and what to do when a decree nisi hadn't been converted into a decree absolute with the result no benefits could be claimed.

All of these people avoided going to lawyers. Lawyers were expensive, remote, and alien. I wasn't.

So when the Legal Services Board published research recently with the headline:

68% of Consumers Have "Little or No Knowledge" of What Lawyers Do

I wasn't surprised. (Hat tip to Charon QC.)

According to the LSB's research more than 60% of respondents had used legal services, and 53% of them within the past 5 years. Did they shop around for the right lawyer? No. Only 14% did that. The purchase of legal services appears to be crisis buying rather than pleasure-based purchasing.

Of course, the above applies mainly to individual consumers rather than business users. Having said that I should modify this statement because small and medium enterprises (SMEs) do have difficulty in finding appropriate and cheap legal services. This is why groups such as the Federation of Small Businesses run legal advice schemes for their members.

The basic problem with most research in this area is that our definitions of legal needs are fuzzy and imperfect. Early studies by the American Bar Foundation showed that the public only obtained legal services for a small proportion of their legal needs. Indeed, a widely-quoted paperon the life histories of disputes, for example, showed that the most common form of dispute resolution is "lumping it".

Bert Kritzer looked at the studies on legal needs in a 2008 paper, Examining the Real Demand for Legal Services. He identified the main problem as a lack of clear baseline data. We need to survey the entire population. There are indications in the extant research (in the US) that cost is not the determinative factor in the use of legal services, but rather lack of knowledge.

Lack of knowledge comes in two forms. First, there is the lack of understanding that a problem might have a legal aspect, eg. stopping of welfare benefits. Second, there is a lack of knowing that a lawyer might be able to help in this situation.

It is these types of knowledge deficits that open opportunities for ambulance chasers, debt consolidators, and claims handling companies who are eager to prise money out of clients than solving their problems.

Lawyers are to blame if consumers don't understand what they do. Despite changes in legal procedure the abandonment of legal Latin (in the UK), the major growth is in the use of ombudsmen and other informal resolution procedures. Institutions that don't require the intercession of lawyers.

And this is where Tesco Law will make its impact. With simplicity, ease of use, friendly representatives, transparent costings, extended opening hours, ready communication, and a firm quality control.

At the moment most lawyers haven't a clue how to respond to that and that is assuming they are aware there is a problem.

Do You Know What Lawyers Do?