header-logo header-logo

Smaller firms will lose out in LDP race

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

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 , 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

Hamlins—Maddox Legal

Hamlins—Maddox Legal

London firm announces acquisition of corporate team

Ward Hadaway—Nik Tunley

Ward Hadaway—Nik Tunley

Head of corporate appointed following Teesside merger

Taylor Rose—Russell Jarvis

Taylor Rose—Russell Jarvis

Firm expands into banking and finance sector with newly appointed head of banking

NEWS
Mazur v Charles Russell Speechlys LLP [2025] EWHC 2341 (KB) continues to stir controversy across civil litigation, according to NLJ columnist Professor Dominic Regan of City Law School—AKA ‘The insider’
SRA v Goodwin is a rare disciplinary decision where a solicitor found to have acted dishonestly avoided being struck off, says Clare Hughes-Williams of DAC Beachcroft in this week's NLJ. The Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal (SDT) imposed a 12-month suspension instead, citing medical evidence and the absence of harm to clients
In their latest Family Law Brief for NLJ, Ellie Hampson-Jones and Carla Ditz of Stewarts review three key family law rulings, including the latest instalment in the long-running saga of Potanin v Potanina
The Asian International Arbitration Centre’s sweeping reforms through its AIAC Suite of Rules 2026, unveiled at Asia ADR Week, are under examination in this week's NLJ by John (Ching Jack) Choi of Gresham Legal
In this week's issue of NLJ, Yasseen Gailani and Alexander Martin of Quinn Emanuel report on the High Court’s decision in Skatteforvaltningen (SKAT) v Solo Capital Partners LLP & Ors [2025], where Denmark’s tax authority failed to recover £1.4bn in disputed dividend tax refunds
back-to-top-scroll