header-logo header-logo

Regulator told to define LDP business models

08 May 2008
Issue: 7320 / Categories: Legal News , Legal services , Procedure & practice , Profession
printer mail-detail

News

The Solicitors Regulation Authority (SRA) must define what it means by “business models” for legal disciplinary practices (LDPs) or face possible legal challenges, the College of Law’s legal services policy institute warns. Professor Stephen Mayson, director of the institute, which was set up in 2006 in the aftermath of the Clementi and Carter reviews, says a definition is urgently needed before new LDPs are formed under the Legal Services Act 2007 in 2009.

 

He says:

“As the marketplace for legal services changes in the wake of competition, there is increasing talk about appropriate business models for the new landscape. It is apparent, however, that although the same term—business model—is being used, it is not necessarily being used in the same way by everyone.”

 

The proposed LDP regulations would allow the SRA to attach a condition to an LDP’s recognition on the basis that such a condition is necessary in the public interest to “limit, halt or prevent a risk to clients, third parties or the public” arising from the firm’s business model (or one it is likely to adopt).

 

Mayson says:

“Neither law firms nor the SRA has a working definition of business models but the SRA is planning to use the concept in LDP regulations. So how can either be sure what the other is proposing? There is a real risk that the regulator and regulated will end up at crosspurposes— or even worse, judicial review.”

 

An SRA spokesman says:

“The rules provide for internal appeals and the statute provides for an appeal to the High Court, so there would be no need for a judicial review. Regarding the definition of business models, the SRA would almost certainly allow any that are legal and do not present risks to clients and the public.”

 

The institute has drawn up its own definition, which is published in a working paper, Business Models in Legal Services:

“A business model is an articulation of a firm’s core logic for creating and capturing value through its investments in and use of resources.”

 

The paper says law firms should consider whether their firm is one business with strategic business units requiring one business model with multiple elements, or a number of discrete businesses each requiring its own business model. For each business model, four core elements must be identified: the value creation elements, the value capture elements, the investment element and the resources element.

MOVERS & SHAKERS

Carey Olsen—Kim Paiva

Carey Olsen—Kim Paiva

Group partner joins Guernsey banking and finance practice

Morgan Lewis—Kat Gibson

Morgan Lewis—Kat Gibson

London labour and employment team announces partner hire

Foot Anstey McKees—Chris Milligan & Michael Kelly

Foot Anstey McKees—Chris Milligan & Michael Kelly

Double partner appointment marks Belfast expansion

NEWS
The Ministry of Justice (MoJ) has not done enough to protect the future sustainability of the legal aid market, MPs have warned
Writing in NLJ this week, NLJ columnist Dominic Regan surveys a landscape marked by leapfrog appeals, costs skirmishes and notable retirements. With an appeal in Mazur due to be heard next month, Regan notes that uncertainties remain over who will intervene, and hopes for the involvement of the Lady Chief Justice and the Master of the Rolls in deciding the all-important outcome
After the Southport murders and the misinformation that followed, contempt of court law has come under intense scrutiny. In this week's NLJ, Lawrence McNamara and Lauren Schaefer of the Law Commission unpack proposals aimed at restoring clarity without sacrificing fair trial rights
The latest Home Office figures confirm that stop and search remains both controversial and diminished. Writing in NLJ this week, Neil Parpworth of De Montfort University analyses data showing historically low use of s 1 PACE powers, with drugs searches dominating what remains
Boris Johnson’s 2019 attempt to shut down Parliament remains a constitutional cautionary tale. The move, framed as a routine exercise of the royal prerogative, was in truth an extraordinary effort to sideline Parliament at the height of the Brexit crisis. Writing in NLJ this week, Professor Graham Zellick KC dissects how prorogation was wrongly assumed to be beyond judicial scrutiny, only for the Supreme Court to intervene unanimously
back-to-top-scroll