Far from sounding a death knell for the legal professional bodies, in his report Sir David emphasised that they could continue to be front-line regulators, accountable to a new Legal Services Board, rather than recommending an FSA-style body which might have been remote from the profession and jeopardise its independence.

He also acknowledged the action already taken by the Law Society in relation to its governance arrangements and its readiness to face the changes that will be needed to regulate the new business model he has proposed, the Legal Disciplinary Practice (LDP). In the vision mapped out by Sir David, the Law Society and the other professional legal bodies could have a key role to play in the development and regulation of an even wider range of legal services and business models than currently exist.

But this is not a blank cheque for the future. Sir David has made it that the Law Society, the Bar Council and others need to review their governance arrangements to make them fit for purpose: “the regulatory and representative functions of front-line regulatory bodies should be clearly split”. If the governance arrangements do not follow these recommendations the Review recommends that the new Legal Services Board would have the right to “insist upon institutional separation”. If anyone doubted the importance of ensuring that professional regulation is not over-dominated by representative interests they have only to look at Dame Janet Smith’s damning conclusions on the regulation of the medical profession in the Shipman inquiry.

Undoubtedly the legal professional bodies will need to continue to prove that we can be a lead regulator not only for the profession but also, in due course, for legal disciplinary practices. We will also have to demonstrate our competence and commitment to implementing governance changes, in order to properly insulate regulation from representation, and to establish a smaller regulatory body, with substantial lay membership, appointed on merit. And that is what the Law Society has been doing. The Law Society Council recognised the need for greater separation of our regulatory and representational function and at its meeting in January 2005; it made a number of important decisions about the future structure of the Law Society.

The Society’s Governance Review Group, chaired by Baroness Prashar, had made recommendations for change in the autumn, and the Law Society Council had to decide how it wished to take forward those proposals. The most important decision that the Council had to decide was how to put into effect the separation of regulation and representation. The decisions taken were nothing short of radical. The Council decided to follow, and in some cases go further than, the recommendations on the separation of the governance of regulation and representation made by Baroness Prashar’s Governance Review Group.

All of the options were ruthlessly tested in a robust debate and the decisions that were finally taken by the Council were unquestionably bold and forward thinking. I believe they will help to ensure that the solicitor’s profession has a sound, effective regulatory structure, fit for the 21st century.

First and foremost, the Council decided to establish two separate and independent Boards – one for regulation and one for complaints. The regulatory body, it decided, will have a solicitor chair, a small solicitor majority with a substantial proportion of lay members. The consumer complaints body will have a lay majority and a lay chair. All members of both bodies will be appointed under Nolan principles and we expect the process to be overseen by the Master of the Rolls. No individual will be able to serve simultaneously as a member of the Council of the Law Society and either of the Boards. It is intended that the new Boards will be in place in shadow form from September 2005 with a view to taking on their formal responsibilities in January 2006.

Because the Council of the Law Society cannot delegate its regulatory responsibilities under the current legislation, the Regulatory Board will make recommendations to the Council on regulatory policy which the Council will have to confirm. It will also advise the Council on the resources it needs to carry out its work effectively and the Council will set the PC fee accordingly. The necessary changes to the General Regulations will be considered by the Council at its May meeting. The plan is that the Regulatory Board will be established for four years while the Complaints Board will operate pending the Government’s decision on the establishment of the Office for Legal Complaints.

Further decisions were made by the Law Society Council in February regarding the numerical balance of solicitor and non-solicitor members on the two new Boards. It was decided that there will be nine solicitor and seven lay members on the Regulation Board and four solicitor and eight lay members on the Consumer Complaints Board.

The Council’s decisions represent a vital and bold step in the modernisation of the Law Society’s governance and for the regulation of the profession. They will ensure full separation between representational issues and regulation and will help to ensure public confidence in the solicitors’ profession in the years ahead.

These changes will also benefit solicitors in that the body responsible for representation will be able to concentrate its energies fully on the profession’s interests. The Law Society is currently conducting a review of its non-regulatory activities to look at how it can best support the profession and represent its members in the future. The Law Society has concluded the first stage of the review which involved meeting with different sectors of the profession to identify key issues. Feedback from those meetings will lead to a formal consultation which will be sent out to the profession later this year.

In his report, Sir David also tackled the thorny subject of consumer complaints and has handled that in a way that was widely anticipated, with the proposal to establish an independent Office for Legal Complaints (likely to be based on our Leamington Consumer Complaints Service and incorporating the work of the Legal Services Ombudsman and the Legal Services Complaints Commissioner). I think the transfer of consumer complaints to an independent body is a good thing. The Law Society – simply because it is also the professional body for solicitors – is not well placed to deliver maximum public confidence in that role. Only a new body run independently of the Law Society will have that opportunity for a fresh start.

And finally, what of the contentious subject of alternative business structures, and in particular legal disciplinary practice? Sir David has covered the whole spectrum of possibilities. Partnerships between lawyers, partnerships between lawyers and non-lawyers and external ownership – his recommendations provide an endorsement of the far-sighted policy the Law Society has already adopted to increase choice for the public and provide additional career avenues for the profession.

The Law Society supports the idea of allowing non-lawyers to own legal practices - providing there are proper safeguards to protect the public from unscrupulous owners who might try to interfere with the lawyer’s freedom to give honest, impartial advice. Whatever the management structure, the Law Society believes it is best placed to regulate legal disciplinary practices, including those that are non-owner managed. However, a ‘one-size fits all’ approach to regulation will not be appropriate in a legal market where alternative business structures are the norm. Clearly, this will present some challenges for the Law Society and for other legal professional bodies but that does not mean that effective regulation of alternative structures is unachievable. We have to be imaginative and forward thinking in creating new ways of delivering legal services to the 21st century client.

The Department for Constitutional Affairs has said it is going to act quickly with a White Paper as soon as possible next year and that could mean draft legislation as soon as the autumn of 2005. The legal profession and its professional bodies must move forward at a pace that is necessary to ensure effective modernisation of the regulatory maze. The Clementi Report provides a compelling vision of how that could be achieved and it also promises great opportunities for the profession and, most importantly, the possibility of greater choice and quicker, easier access to lawyers for consumers. A modern profession will only thrive for the next generation if it shows willingness to face change head on and to adapt to it – as such we should embrace the opportunities that Sir David Clementi’s vision provides.