Countdown to a new dispensation

An interesting piece in this morning’s FT by Jane Croft, Legal firms set for ‘Tesco law’, based on a recent survey by Smith & Williamson on whether, and to what extent, the top 100 law firms will use the deregulation of the legal services sector to raise external finance.

What is clear from this survey is that the top end of the legal market is preparing to take advantage of the Legal Services Act and, if the rumour mill is to be believed, so too are the external providers – whether Tesco, the AA etc. None of this is surprising.

But what about the “squeezed middle”? (Not mentioned by Smith & Williamson).

In my previous Lawslot Redux post, now six months old, I said that in the hurly-burly of practice it is sometimes difficult to take time out to think about what may be needed. I might also have added that the current economic environment is making fee earning work an imperative (no time for posts).

Yet as Giles Murphy of Smith & Williamson notes,

The provision of legal services will change radically in the next five years with consolidation, external capital, new entrants and mergers with other professions; those who are best prepared will be in a strong position to take advantage.

He is talking about using external finance to develop and grow faster than your rivals. And competitive advantage may be obtained in any number of other ways – but I am not convinced that the profession as a whole has yet come to grips with what the Legal Services Act will actually mean for us day-to-day. It is going to be an interesting run up to October.

A bag of sweets for Gorbals Mick

Why are we so cynical about Parliament? The answer in part lies in the almost total disregard that MPs have for all of us (not only have we voted them in, or possibly voted against them but are stuck with them) but we are also paying for them (and with most of them, their wives, husbands, mothers (thank you Mr Hain), no doubt fathers and their wider family, sons, daughters, illegitimate offspring, guide dogs, hamsters, goldfish etc.; to say nothing of the fact that with Mr Prescott most of it went down the tubes).

Anyway, see Sue Cameron’s article in the FT, Nice little earners for Mr Speaker. I cannot think of a less deserving recipient. But they are all in it: see the BBC News report on “lump sum expenses plan” for MPs. And who is leading the charge? No prizes: Gorbals Mick

More Dr Gordon

I have always wondered how I might avoid involuntary involvement in a photo-opportunity if I had the double misfortune to be involved in some newsworthy incident and then visited by a politician not of my choice. In his Notebook in the FT today, John Willman gave me the answer. He was commenting on Gordon Brown’s visit to the Royal Marsden (“all too redolent of Margaret Thatcher’s predeliction for visiting the victims of the disasters that seemed to afflict Britain with great regularity in the 1980s – again with silent spouse in tow”). Apparently, he goes on, “when Mrs Thatcher made a habit of touring the wards, witty leftwingers had little cards printed saying that in the event of an accident or disaster, they did not wish to be visited by the Iron Lady”. Something to tuck into the wallet, along with the Donor Card (and possibly add as a note to my ICE number on the mobile).