Conclusion
Until recently the legal professions and lawyers in England and Wales enjoyed considerable autonomy. The legal professional bodies were self-regulating and there was little competition in the legal services market.
Lawyers largely controlled important areas of work, such as litigation, subject only to the rules of court. This freedom arose partly because independent legal professions were regarded as an important counterweight to state power. Lawyers helped to control the state through the courts. Professionalised occupations encouraged the kind of active citizenship necessary to counterbalance the risk of impersonal state encroachment on the rights of the individual. This dynamic relationship between the state and occupational groups was seen as vital to maintaining individual freedom.[576]In the 1980s, the re-emergence of market capitalism brought a new focus on competition in monopolistic industries, including the legal services market. Particular targets were routine but important consumer matters, such as the cost of conveyancing. A more significant issue was litigation. To be meaningful, the rule of law demands swift and economic resolution of civil disputes. Historically, the adversarial system was seen as inefficient. During the 1990s, a declining proportion of the population was eligible for legal aid. This forced the issue of access to justice up the political agenda.
Government strategy has been to force down legal costs by reducing the market privileges of the legal professions. From the 1980s more competition was introduced in the legal services market. One strategy was to create new groups, such as licensed conveyancers, and another was to increase competition between the existing legal professions. The LSA 2007 forced professions to separate their representative and regulatory functions. Regulatory activity was placed under an ‘oversight regulator’, the Legal Services Board. The LSB instigates challenges to professional regulation and approves changes to their rules and regulations. These cumulative restrictions on the legal professions mark a significant diminution of professional power since the 1980s.
Despite the incremental loss of the trappings of professional power, monopoly and self-regulation, workplace jurisdiction, the key to professional power, remains. Aspects of this jurisdiction, the aggressive international performance of English firms for example, is something government does not want to lose. Such considerations may bring the state into a new compromise with the legal profession. Independence is the new warrant of legal professionalism, although continued sponsorship of professional power undoubtedly depends on the profession’s guarantee of ethical behaviour. Lawyers will be required to deliver legal services more efficiently, while balancing effectively client demands and the social harm involved in fulfilling them.
More on the topic Conclusion:
- Conclusion
- CONCLUSION
- Conclusion
- Conclusion
- Conclusion: are there any markets out there?
- Conclusion
- Conclusion
- Conclusion: the difficult design of tort law
- Conclusions
- Conclusions