October is panning out to be the cruellest month when it comes to diversity and the law. Last week we had the much-anticipated (and highly predictable) review of higher education funding by Lord Browne, while as Legal Week went to press the coalition Government was preparing the results of its comprehensive spending review (CSR).

Both events look set to have a substantial impact on the profession, though the negative financial outcome will be felt by lawyers paid far less than Legal Week's core audience.

In the case of Browne, the recommendation that universities be allowed to charge what they like will further add to the mountain of debt that the typical aspiring lawyer accumulates on the way to qualification. To be blunt, the upside of such a policy for large commercial firms in hard business terms would almost certainly outweigh the downside.

For one, unleashing the already pretty robust competitive forces in tertiary education would further strengthen the Russell Group universities that supply leading law firms, allowing them to charge higher fees and attract more investment. It's a reasonable assumption that it would gradually encourage such institutions towards a more business-orientated view, which would suit City institutions.

There would also be other impacts, the result of which would be more ambiguous. Higher debt would have an impact on the mindset of the junior ranks joining law firms. Put it like this – they would be less likely to tolerate lectures on the virtues of loyalty and the ultimate reward of partnership.

For obvious reasons, such a shift would favour higher-paying US law firms, which already have pay structures built on the US-model of high-cost higher education. There would also be pressure to speed up the training of lawyers – witness the adoption of accelerated Legal Practice Courses (LPCs).

As some have suggested, there could be a temptation for the most powerful universities to add vocational legal training onto their degree course, which would have huge implications for current LPC providers. Taking a wider view, I'd say anyone who thinks Browne's proposals won't have a negative impact on social diversity in law is kidding themselves.

Then there is George Osborne's axe, which is pretty clearly going to be hitting the Ministry of Justice and the legal aid budget particularly hard. The Government seems keen to promote the pro bono efforts of City law firms to help make up for the cuts, but I wouldn't be too hopeful. No-one can criticise pro bono, but City lawyers have always been uneasy about being used as a front for salami-slicing legal aid, and plainly there are some things that only Government funding can achieve. The faltering bonds that still tether the various branches of the profession look set to come under yet more strain in the years ahead.

For more, see: