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

Slater Heelis—Chester office

Slater Heelis—Chester office

North West presence strengthened with Chester office launch

Cooke, Young & Keidan—Elizabeth Meade

Cooke, Young & Keidan—Elizabeth Meade

Firm grows commercial disputes expertise with partner promotion

CBI South-East Council—Mike Wilson

CBI South-East Council—Mike Wilson

Blake Morgan managing partner appointed chair of CBI South-East Council

NEWS
The House of Lords has set up a select committee to examine assisted dying, which will delay the Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill
The proposed £11bn redress scheme following the Supreme Court’s motor finance rulings is analysed in this week’s NLJ by Fred Philpott of Gough Square Chambers
In this week's issue, Stephen Gold, NLJ columnist and former district judge, surveys another eclectic fortnight in procedure. With humour and humanity, he reminds readers that beneath the procedural dust, the law still changes lives
Generative AI isn’t the villain of the courtroom—it’s the misunderstanding of it that’s dangerous, argues Dr Alan Ma of Birmingham City University and the Birmingham Law Society in this week's NLJ
James Naylor of Naylor Solicitors dissects the government’s plan to outlaw upward-only rent review (UORR) clauses in new commercial leases under Schedule 31 of the English Devolution and Community Empowerment Bill, in this week's NLJ. The reform, he explains, marks a seismic shift in landlord-tenant power dynamics: rents will no longer rise inexorably, and tenants gain statutory caps and procedural rights
back-to-top-scroll