Agatha Christie started it. Read any of her whodunnits up to the moment when a solicitor arrives on the scene, and you instantly know who the crook is.

Consumers are also not particularly keen. A quote from Which? reads: "People complain… time and time again about the second-rate service they receive from solicitors, often during stressful times. Other professions cannot get away with this sort of behaviour, and it is time for the Government to rein in this complaint-riddled industry."

The Government has taken the hint. The White Paper 'Putting Consumers First' recommends dramatic changes to the way the legal profession is regulated. The key areas of change lie in the way complaints are dealt with, and in the identity of the regulator. Lawyers will be allowed to practise in new business structures, apparently in the hope that a consumer-facing business ethos will percolate through to the legal profession.

Clementi's recommendations

In his report of the Review of the Regulatory Framework for Legal Services in England and Wales, published in December 2004, Sir David Clementi considered that the distinction previously drawn between three different types of complaints (inadequate professional service, professional misconduct and negligence) is meaningless to consumers, who simply want redress.

Under the new system (to the extent that the consumer is seeking redress), all complaints against solicitors and barristers will be directed to a new body – the Office for Legal Complaints (OLC). The significance for lawyers and their insurers is that, for the first time, negligence claims will be dealt with as complaints, unless they are "of high value or complex".

The OLC is to have the power to award up to £20,000 in compensation, to require evidence and documents and "will have powers" in relation to attendance and examination of witnesses. In practice, this may mean that smaller claims are dealt with under this procedure, away from the courts and the Professional Negligence Protocol. It may also allow the complainant to test the strength of an intended claim in a risk-free environment.

The way that lawyers are allowed to work will also be shaken up. Solicitors, barristers and non-lawyers will, for the first time, be able to work together in alternative business structures (ABSs) and tap into external investment. Again, the aim is to benefit consumers by increasing choice, reducing prices and improving efficiency. Commentators expect that the key changes will be to services such as conveyancing, which are seen as ripe for commoditisation.

All this will mean structural change. The OLC will be appointed and overseen by the Legal Services Board (LSB), which will also regulate 'Front Line Regulators' such as the Law Society and Bar Council. The system will have to be flexible enough to address the regulatory needs of ABSs.

Matters of concern

Concern has been expressed that while the OLC and LSB are billed as 'independent', in practice they will be independent of the legal profession, but not of the Government, as it will be the Secretary of State who appoints the members of the LSB. They in turn will appoint the OLC, and the chair of each will be a non-lawyer. The chair of the OLC must also be approved by the Secretary of State.

But it does not stop at regulatory reform. Just as there is government disapproval, so there is judicial censure of poor service from the legal profession.

The current flood of new judgments in solicitors' negligence cases is unlikely to be maintained. Claim numbers are still steadily rising (even ignoring the rash of TAG claims), but those going to litigation are, according to one leading professional indemnity insurer, down by 30% in the last year.

So what are the reasons for this?

. The rise of mediation is a contributor, although many do not take place until litigation has started.

. The Professional Negligence Protocol contributes by giving earlier access to the information necessary for settlement negotiations.

. Costs pressures are a major contributor, particularly conditional fee arrangements (CFAs).

Costs can quickly become disproportionate to the sum at issue. The fear of your opponent's costs doubling is a powerful incentive to settle – sometimes despite the true merits of the claim.

So what other reasons could there be? Lost chance claims are a significant contributor to the settlement culture. The majority of errors made by solicitors give rise to the loss of a chance – the chance to have done better. Since 1996, damages in all lost chance claims have been assessed on a percentage basis to reflect the likelihood that the client would have done better, but for his solicitor's negligence. It is true that the client first has to show causation by proving that he originally had a real and substantial chance of success. But in this context, 'substantial' only means 'more than speculative'. The causation bar is therefore low, and awards of 20% or so are not uncommon. Thus, a client might well do better from his solicitor's negligence than he would have done if there had been no negligence.

But where the solicitor has allowed a claim to become statute barred by culpable delay, the full wrath of the law now descends. The causation bar was first set at 'negligible' for such claims in 1998, but then effectively sidelined by the Court of Appeal in 2004 in Patricia Dixon v Clement Jones. In that case, solicitors allowed their client's claim against her accountants to be struck out for delay. At trial, the judge stated that although the accountants were negligent, on balance Mrs Dixon would not have accepted non-negligent advice. Nevertheless, he assessed the value of her lost chance at 30%. Bearing in mind that, before the same judge, the client would have failed because the accountants' negligence had not caused her loss, the 30% assessment against her unfortunate solicitors is hard to swallow.

The increased awareness of the harshness of lost chance (particularly lost litigation) cases has encouraged the early settlement of such claims. While Mrs Dixon might have looked in vain for a CFA to pursue the accountants, she would have had no trouble in getting one to pursue her solicitors.

One of the great problems is that courts will not allow lost litigation cases to be assessed by detailed analysis (a trial within a trial). The easier option of an overall assessment of value is preferred. While that continues, awards can be hugely varied and hard to predict. Also, even bad original claims now have a value.

Ironically, it is the more difficult or less meritorious claims that take the longest to progress to trial, and are therefore most at risk of being struck out for delay.

Was ever a profession so mistreated? What was that book? Was it Murder In Westminster or Murder On The Strand, or both?

Barney Micklem and Katherine Rees are partners in Reynolds Porter Chamberlain's lawyers' liability group.