Industry | 2010.08.31
High-street law revolution must focus on customer satisfaction
High-street law firms are under threat on all sides. But they must move with the times and offer more accessible, flexible services
The fabled high-street network of law firms is in danger . The threats are piling up – legal aid cuts, \' Tesco Law \', being thrown off mortgage lenders\' panels and difficulties securing indemnity insurance to name just four. Access to justice, we are repeatedly told, is in peril.
Here\'s a thought: So what?
High-street law firms have become synonymous with access to justice, but this seems to rest mainly on the quantity, rather than the quality, of what is on offer. This is not a reliable metric and one, significantly, that the super-regulator, the Legal Services Board, does not buy into.
In any case, the 10,500 or so law firms in England and Wales are not doing all they can to service the public. Law Society statistics show that 42% of them are based in London and the south-east, where 29% of the population lives – in every other region of England and Wales the proportion of law firms and solicitors in the area is smaller than the proportion of the population as a whole.
When would-be alternative business structures apply for licences next year, the licensing body will be required specifically to consider the impact on access to justice of granting the licence. This provision was added during the passage of the Legal Services Act through parliament and is arguably shorthand for "how many law firms will close as a result?".
However, the Legal Services Board does not see it like this. In guidance issued earlier this year, it said this test should not "solely or mainly" be based on requirements such as the provision of face-to-face services, the number of traditional firms in a given area, or categories of legal advice provided.
It is a view shared by Baroness Dianne Hayter, who chairs the board\'s consumer panel. What matters to her is accessibility. If a supermarket opened a high-street law firm that forced traditional firms to shut down, for example, that might not be terrible if the supermarket firm was open until 8pm. Or maybe it would be good to locate a lawyer in one of the new polyclinics.
Further, the rest of the profession is carrying the cost of small firms. The 90 law firms that Solicitors Regulation Agency has closed down in the past year have all been sole practitioners or two-to-four partner practices, while the Solicitors Compensation Fund – which reimburses the victims of fraud or other default – is currently dealing with £157m of claims by clients , again mainly arising from small firms.
These figures do not tell the whole story – where one partner has gone rotten in a larger firm, for example, it is unlikely to be shut down, while the losses would be paid by their indemnity insurance rather than the compensation fund – but nonetheless smaller firms do add to the cost of regulation.
There is a reason why mortgage lenders do not want sole practitioners on their panels, and why some small law firms are struggling to find indemnity insurance with a month to go before the renewal deadline. While it is obviously a sweeping generalisation that is hugely unfair to the majority of decent high–street solicitors, the fact is that the smaller the firm, the greater the likelihood of being involved, wittingly or unwittingly, in property fraud.
Undoubtedly many solicitors do a fine job. They are committed to their work and their clients, despite relatively low levels of pay (relative to the City, at least). But there is a fair number who have good reason to fear new competition and other challenges to the traditional practice of law, either because they are simply not very good lawyers or they do not provide a proper service. The legal profession has always struggled with the idea that it is a service industry.
The way some law firms operate at the moment arguably reduces access to justice, whether their offices are up a flight of stairs above some shops, making it impossible for a wheelchair-user to visit, or use language that is impenetrable to the lay client, or if they simply charge too much for what is often routine work.
They are not embracing the innovation, never mind the efficiencies, that technology offers – just at a time when the next generation of clients will expect to deal with the lawyer online in the same way that they do with other service providers, reducing the already diminishing importance of face-to-face advice.
There is always an element in the legal profession that things are done this way because this is the way they are done, and have been for a long time. But the old orthodoxies are breaking down. Being part of the high-street network will no longer protect solicitors. Giving clients what they want, in the way they want it and at a reasonable price, will. And maybe that\'s just fine.
Neil Rose is editor of www.legalfutures.co.uk
For more information, please visit
http://www.guardian.co.uk/law/2010/aug/31/high-street-law-overhaul
Instagram is adding automatic in-app text translation - The Verge views: 1565
Instagram is adding automatic in-app text translation - The Verge views: 1507