header-logo header-logo

Comparing the market

15 November 2018 / John Gould
Issue: 7817 / Categories: Features , Legal services , Regulatory , Profession
printer mail-detail

Despite the push towards transparency in pricing, John Gould explains why comparing legal services like-for-like isn’t so simple

  • The Solicitors Regulation Authority Transparency Rules aim to assist consumers by providing more information on pricing for legal services, but miss the point that even the most basic lawyers’ services are complex, customised and therefore not easily comparable.
  • Transparency to show how a firm is better value than the next firm is good for business; nonetheless, mandatory detailed price information doesn’t tell you much about value.
  • The main market effect of mandatory information may be to give an advantage to those providers prepared to start with a price and then fit the service they actually offer to the price they have chosen.

Back in December 2016, after a year-long study, the government announced that the Competition and Markets Authority (CMA) had concluded that competition in legal services for individual consumers and small businesses was ‘not working well’. In particular, the CMA thought that there was not enough information available to consumers on price,

If you are not a subscriber, subscribe now to read this content
If you are already a subscriber sign in
...or Register for two weeks' free access to subscriber content

MOVERS & SHAKERS

Muckle LLP—Ella Johnson

Muckle LLP—Ella Johnson

Real estate dispute resolution team welcomes newly qualified solicitor

Morr & Co—Dennis Phillips

Morr & Co—Dennis Phillips

International private client team appoints expert in Spanish law

NLJ Career Profile: Stefan Borson, McCarthy Denning

NLJ Career Profile: Stefan Borson, McCarthy Denning

Stefan Borson, football finance expert head of sport at McCarthy Denning, discusses returning to the law digging into the stories behind the scenes

NEWS
Paper cyber-incident plans are useless once ransomware strikes, argues Jack Morris of Epiq in NLJ this week
In this week's NLJ, Robert Hargreaves and Lily Johnston of York St John University examine the Employment Rights Bill 2024–25, which abolishes the two-year qualifying period for unfair-dismissal claims
Writing in NLJ this week, Manvir Kaur Grewal of Corker Binning analyses the collapse of R v Óg Ó hAnnaidh, where a terrorism charge failed because prosecutors lacked statutory consent. The case, she argues, highlights how procedural safeguards—time limits, consent requirements and institutional checks—define lawful state power
Michael Zander KC, emeritus professor at LSE, revisits his long-forgotten Crown Court Study (1993), which surveyed 22,000 participants across 3,000 cases, in the first of a two-part series for NLJ
Getty Images v Stability AI Ltd [2025] EWHC 2863 (Ch) was a landmark test of how UK law applies to AI training—but does it leave key questions unanswered, asks Emma Kennaugh-Gallagher of Mewburn Ellis in NLJ this week
back-to-top-scroll