We canvassed City partners and in-house counsel for their views on the Law Society and the state of representation in the profession
LATE TO THE PARTY
‘I endorse what the Law Society is doing, particularly chief executive Catherine Dixon. What she’s doing to try to boost representation for the in-house community is laudable and to be encouraged. The difficulty it’s got is that it came to the game slightly later than others and it would admit that. If you look at the number of bodies and institutions that are there to assist in-house, they’re competing and therefore it makes life more difficult. My limited experience is the Law Society is doing the right thing. We would support them but there’s a long way to go.’
Robert Ivens, head of legal, Marks and Spencer
BIG BOYS DON’T CRY
‘It’s difficult – as a City lawyer, the Law Society is not my regulatory body anymore. It needs to raise its profile as a representative body because people don’t necessarily look to it for guidance. My area of practice doesn’t get represented. Someone who is a criminal lawyer has a lot more to do with it as its message is to promote social justice and access to justice. It has a lesser role to play in the commercial community because people tend to interact with trade bodies, like the Loan Market Association, and each other rather than the Law Society. Companies are generally more organised and able to lobby direct, whereas for individuals in less fortunate areas, the Law Society plays an important role lobbying to government. The big boys can look after themselves.’
Stuart Brinkworth, London head of finance, Fried, Frank, Harris, Shriver & Jacobson
FEWER THE BETTER
‘I like the fact in-house lawyers are not separate, even though we have distinct practices. I like that we are regulated exactly the same as private practitioners and I would be worried if it were to move the other way. The UK has a very liberal regulatory environment anyway; there are only a few areas where you have to be a barrister or a solicitor to deliver legal services. If you look across all law-related services there are over ten separate regulators – we should be moving the other way, there should be fewer regulators.’
Dan Fitz, group general counsel and company secretary, BT
MONEY FOR NOTHING
‘We spend a lot of money on practising certificate fees. We’ve never done an assessment on the value for money the Law Society provides, as the situation hasn’t arisen, but we would always do one. The likes of the City of London Law Society are useful to us as it provides a means of having some voice and information. We’re big enough and professional enough to look after ourselves.’
George Brown, partner, Reed Smith
‘What Catherine Dixon is trying to do for the in-house community is laudable. We would support them but there’s a long way to go.’ Robert Ivens, Marks and Spencer
YOU’RE THE VOICE
‘The profession needs representation, a voice to be heard, and the society is very vocal at the moment. It has identified and is articulating its point of view on issues of great importance, of regulation independent of government, and of the maintenance of professional standards, education and training. I fear, however, that its voice will not be listened to while it clings to the notion that regulation and representation can be combined.’
David Rutherford, insurance and reinsurance partner, Ince & Co
SPLIT IMPERATIVE
‘The Solicitors Regulation Authority should probably split from the Law Society, as under the regulation it doesn’t – and shouldn’t – have any formal role in regulating, so the interpenetration between the two isn’t helpful and doesn’t make for good decisions. The approach that makes the most sense for education, which is currently under the regulator’s remit, is that anything required would remain with the SRA and the Law Society could retain control of specialisation schemes, which is basically extra quality assurance and marketing for firms.’
Richard Moorhead, director – Centre for Ethics and Law, University College London
UP THE ANTE
‘We can always do more for our members. We are engaging a lot more with our City members and we recognise that one size doesn’t fit all. There are things we can do as a national law society that would be difficult for local law societies, even one as big as the City of London Law Society, to do. We can open up international markets and influence the government in a way local bodies couldn’t do.
There are opportunities to look at voluntary contributions. I’m keen to ensure we deliver value for money for members irrespective of how we’re funded. Currently there’s a recognition in statute that we fulfil a public interest role and there are a number of permitted activities recognised as important for the legal profession that we spend the practising certificate (PC) money on. I’m keen to develop our commercial activities to remove the burden that we place on the PC fee. The more commercial activities we do, the more self-sustaining we are.’
Catherine Dixon, chief executive, Law Society
STAND ALONE
‘The SRA wants to run the whole caboodle and the Law Society become a meeting club. I agree with how the Law Society wants to split the profession as the Law Society should own the title solicitor and be responsible for professional standards. It’s what accountants do. We need to maintain our independence from government as a professional qualification, as an independent SRA would effectively be government. We don’t want state control of solicitors.’
Tim Clement-Jones, London managing partner, DLA Piper