Prime Minister Theresa May's speech in Florence last Friday (22 September) attempted to strike a "calming note" with proposals for a post-Brexit transition period, but many City lawyers say she did not provide enough clarity in many areas.

In the speech, May laid out plans for a two-year transition period after March 2019, in an effort to ease concerns that the UK is headed for a 'cliff-edge' hard Brexit.

However, City lawyers have raised concerns about several ongoing uncertainties, from the rights of EU nationals in the UK to the question of continued payments to the EU and the future of the UK services industry. Here are a selection of responses to the speech.

Paul Rawlinson, global chair, Baker McKenzie 

"The pace of progress since the triggering of Article 50 has been frustratingly slow and there are still too many uncertainties, which is why it is clear to me and many of the clients I meet that the UK must avoid a 'cliff edge' Brexit. I would welcome any move to a 'status quo' transition – including potentially remaining within the EU's single market and customs union – for two or three years after 2019.

"Yes, the EU would be damaged by a hard Brexit, but I am convinced – and we have research coming out shortly on trade flows which confirms this – that the UK would be damaged far more. As a UK employer, we remain very concerned about guaranteeing the rights of EU nationals who have made the UK their home for their careers and for their families. We already know from our own study on the labour market released in June that unless progress is made, large numbers of skilled EU nationals are likely to leave the UK before the outcome of the Brexit negotiations takes effect, resulting in potentially huge skills gaps. That is why we hope that the government resolves this issue as quickly as possible in its negotiations."

Bruce Potter, chairman, Blake Morgan 

"Theresa May set out to strike a conciliatory and calming note with her speech in Florence, but it was not enough to paper over the huge gap that remains between the UK's domestic political view of Brexit and the way that the rest of Europe sees it. The question of continued payments to the EU is a huge stumbling block which must be resolved if any useful talks are to take place on life after Brexit – the vital issue for the UK political audience.

"Mrs May has asked the EU to be 'imaginative and creative' but until she is more forthcoming about exactly what she wants Brexit to be, it is hard to imagine anything but continued deadlock."

Charles Brasted, head of public law and policy, Hogan Lovells

"This intervention is welcome. It makes clear the UK Government's priority is now clearly to provide valuable certainty during the transitional period. But words and ambitions are not enough. Mrs May's ambitious proposal, although a concrete attempt to reinvigorate discussions, does not resolve the parties' many differences on key issues.

"Eyes now turn to the continent to gauge the appetite of the EU27 for May's invitation to seek creative solutions. Businesses will look again for a collaborative, pragmatic approach on both sides. They must also look to themselves in redoubling their efforts to make the case for a Brexit process and a future relationship that deliver on prosperity for all of Europe. This is no zero-sum game."

Christina Blacklaws, vice-president, The Law Society 

"We have been arguing for many months for a deal that ensures people's rights but also that takes steps so our economy is not undermined. This proposal for an interim deal is to be welcomed – not least for our legal system which, as Theresa May said in her Florence speech, is respected the world over. A clearer vision of the future of the UK services industry is urgently needed."

Alexi Dimitriou, competition lawyer, Ashurst

"The Prime Minister's speech shines a welcome light on some key elements of the UK's departure – the willingness of the government to remain bound by EU rules during a two-year 'implementation phase' is clearly better than a cliff edge scenario. However, this proposal will require the EU's agreement and the details of such 'implementation phase' will need to be negotiated, which will not be easy.

"The Prime Minister's proposal that the UK courts should take into account the judgments of the European Court of Justice (ECJ) is a pragmatic step in seeking to ensure the consistent interpretation of UK and EU law post-Brexit. However, as the EU views the ECJ and access to the single market as an indivisible package, it is difficult to see them agreeing that the supremacy of the ECJ should be limited during any 'implementation phase'."