header-logo header-logo

27 September 2007 / Richard Harrison
Issue: 7290 / Categories: Features , Procedure & practice , Profession
printer mail-detail

Confronting the code

The new code of conduct requires a formal contractual approach, not woolly marketing-speak, says Richard Harrison

No other profession so loathes itself. No profession is as highly regulated in terms of control of charging and detailed—arguably overbearing—client care requirements. The self-abasement inspired by public perception of the grasping, obfuscating solicitor has reached its apotheosis in the new Solicitors’ Code of Conduct which came into force on 1 July 2007—and we cower before our regulators.

The requirements have no doubt built up from past scandals, badly reported news items and misconceived judicial comments. Yet we must now live with it. The profession and its critics, in the judiciary and elsewhere, have now become focused on the client care letter. This was originally known as a rule 15 letter and, from some time in the early 1990s, the Law Society seems to have promulgated a precedent which most law firms have assiduously adopted and which somewhere contained the meaningless jargon:

“We aim to provide you with a high quality and cost effective service.”

It brings

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

Thackray Williams—Lucy Zhu

Thackray Williams—Lucy Zhu

Dual-qualified partner joins as head of commercial property department

Morgan Lewis—David A. McManus

Morgan Lewis—David A. McManus

Firm announces appointment of next chair

Burges Salmon—Rebecca Wilsker

Burges Salmon—Rebecca Wilsker

Director joins corporate team from the US

NEWS
What safeguards apply when trust corporations are appointed as deputy by the Court of Protection? 
Disputing parties are expected to take part in alternative dispute resolution (ADR), where this is suitable for their case. At what point, however, does refusing to participate cross the threshold of ‘unreasonable’ and attract adverse costs consequences?
When it comes to free legal advice, demand massively outweighs supply. 'Millions of people are excluded from access to justice as they don’t have anywhere to turn for free advice—or don’t know that they can ask for help,' Bhavini Bhatt, development director at the Access to Justice Foundation, writes in this week's NLJ
When an ex-couple is deciding who gets what in the divorce or civil partnership dissolution, when is it appropriate for a third party to intervene? David Burrows, NLJ columnist and solicitor advocate, considers this thorny issue in this week’s NLJ
NLJ's latest Charities Appeals Supplement has been published in this week’s issue
back-to-top-scroll