The Law Society can't have its regulatory cake and eat it

Legal Week got itself kicked off the Law Society's Christmas card list recently when we questioned attempts to influence regulation, specifically the wisdom of Chancery Lane commissioning a review that seemed more under the remit of the Solicitors Regulation Authority (SRA). This discontent comes from the Society's accurate assertion that it remains the approved front-line regulator under the Legal Services Act (LSA). But, with respect, and having since spoken to chief executive Des Hudson, I stand by the criticism. After all, the Society could have launched a credible case around its LSA-backed status as a regulator. But the framework of its current model was created in 2005, when the Society was under intense pressure to reform in the wake of Sir David Clementi's review of the legal services market, which called for a substantive split between solicitor regulation and representation.

I would argue – and I suspect the current leadership of Chancery Lane wouldn't entirely disagree – that the Society was guilty of overselling the original split that created the SRA as it attempted to defuse criticism of its dual role. As it turned out the LSA was less draconian than feared in forcing the Society to give up power, but the body remains bound by its earlier rhetoric. The Society is now attempting to have its cake while eating it – seeking credit for modernising reform while also stressing its reaffirmed regulatory clout. It would have also been better all round if the Society discovered its current taste for regulatory debate three years ago, when this model was drawn up.

Some of these points are open to debate but on another issue the Society is plain wrong: the attempt to justify the review of regulation on the basis that there has been – in the words of one official – "a quantum leap of dissatisfaction" among commercial firms regarding the SRA.