header-logo header-logo

31 January 2008
Issue: 7306 / Categories: Legal News , Company , Constitutional law , Commercial
printer mail-detail

Smaller firms will lose out in LDP race

Small and medium-sized firms will be “disadvantaged disproportion­ately” by the new legal discipli­nary practice (LDP) provisions of the Legal Services Act, the Legal Services Policy Institute claims.

In its response to the Solici­tors Regulation Authority’s (SRA) consultation paper on new forms of practice and regulation, Profes­sor Stephen Mayson, director of the institute, which is part of the College of Law, attacks the requirement for a minimum of 75% lawyer ownership and control.

He says: “This disproportion­ately disadvantages small and medium-sized firms currently with three or fewer partners who wish to take non-lawyers into co­ownership.”

Even where firms can take advantage of the new LDP provi­sions, they will face further disin­centive with the costs, time and effort required to convert from an LDP to an alternative business structure (ABS) when the licensing provisions become fully opera­tional in about four years’ time, he says.

“We are urging the SRA to give an early indication of their likely approach to the conversion of LDPs into ABSs. Also, it does not seem to be clear what would happen to an LDP owned by, say, three lawyers and a non-lawyer where one or more of the three lawyers ceases to be an owner. Such a situation could arise beyond the control of the firm, for example, because of the death of one of the lawyers.”

The institute is also unhappy that it will take until 2009 to authorise LDPs. It says: “It is three years since Sir David Clementi’s final report…It is therefore disap­pointing that further anticipatory work was not carried out.”

An SRA spokesman says: “It may be several years since Sir David Clementi reported, but there was potential for significant change to the Legal Services Bill until the closing days of the last Parliamentary session. Detailed preparatory work may have turned out to be a waste of time. In any case, we are obliged to consult on various aspects of the Act, including LDPs. Implementa­tion before 2009 is not practica­ble.”

Jeff Zindani, solicitor and managing director of Forum Law, says it will be business decisions by commercial organisations about whether to invest in law firms and not theoretical analysis that will shape parts of the future legal sector.

“Small and medium sized law firms will not be disadvan­taged by the proposed changes. Ironically, less partners and low gearing may provide the best environment to invest away from the large firms who have business vehicles rooted in the nineteenth century. As an MD of a small incorporated law firm undertak­ing personal injury work, we have seen real interest in joint ventures with blue chip companies.”

Issue: 7306 / Categories: Legal News , Company , Constitutional law , Commercial
printer mail-details

MOVERS & SHAKERS

Jurit LLP—Caroline Williams

Jurit LLP—Caroline Williams

Private wealth and tax team welcomes cross-border specialist as consultant

Freeths—Michelle Kirkland Elias

Freeths—Michelle Kirkland Elias

International hospitality and leisure specialist joins corporate team as partner

Flint Bishop—Deborah Niven

Flint Bishop—Deborah Niven

Firm appoints head of intellectual property to drive northern growth

NEWS
Talk of a reserved ‘Welsh seat’ on the Supreme Court is misplaced. In NLJ this week, Professor Graham Zellick KC explains that the Constitutional Reform Act treats ‘England and Wales’ as one jurisdiction, with no statutory Welsh slot
The government’s plan to curb jury trials has sparked ‘jury furore’. Writing in NLJ this week, David Locke, partner at Hill Dickinson, says the rationale is ‘grossly inadequate’
A year after the $1.5bn Bybit heist, crypto fraud is booming—but so is recovery. Writing in NLJ this week, Neil Holloway, founder and CEO of M2 Recovery, warns that scams hit at least $14bn in 2025, fuelled by ‘pig butchering’ cons and AI deepfakes
After Woodcock confirmed no general duty to warn, debate turns to the criminal law. Writing in NLJ this week, Charles Davey of The Barrister Group urges revival of misprision or a modern equivalent
Family courts are tightening control of expert evidence. Writing in NLJ this week, Dr Chris Pamplin says there is ‘no automatic right’ to call experts; attendance must be ‘necessary in the interests of justice’ under FPR Pt 25
back-to-top-scroll