Law complaints quango Scottish Legal Complaints Commission 'a failure' as Discipline Tribunal reveals no prosecutions of crooked lawyers in two years

Disappearing Act : Not one crooked lawyer prosecuted in two years under Holyrood’s legal complaints reforms. THE latest Annual Report of the Scottish Solicitors Discipline Tribunal (SSDT), the allegedly 'independent' law complaints tribunal which prosecutes ‘crooked lawyers’ after cases resulting from client complaints are sent to it by the Law Society of Scotland, has revealed NOT ONE SINGLE SOLICITOR has been prosecuted under laws brought in as a result of a hugely expensive year long investigation & debate at the Scottish Parliament during 2006 to introduce legislative reforms covering the regulation of complaints against the legal profession.

The reforms, which the Scottish Executive & Scottish Parliament claimed would end the bias against clients in a regulatory system operated solely by the Law Society of Scotland where lawyers investigate themselves, were passed by msps in December 2006 after a year of bitter debate at the Scottish Parliament’s former Justice 2 Committee.

The Chairman of the Scottish Solicitors Discipline Tribunal, Alistair Cockburn, writing in the SSDT’s 2010 annual report claimed there was no explanation for the lack of cases brought before the tribunal. He said : “The volume of business coming to the Tribunal has significantly reduced in the last 18 months. There seems to be no particular explanation for this. The Tribunal however has been surprised by the fact that it has so far not dealt with any cases governed by the Legal Profession and Legal Aid (Scotland) Act 2007 (the 2007 Act) which applies to all conduct which occurred after 1 October 2008. The Tribunal would have expected to have been dealing with these cases by now.”

Mr Cockburn did admit two cases had been brought to the SSDT’s attention, apparently from lay complainers directly, but the two appeals had been withdrawn over fears of being hit with expenses bills. He said : “The Tribunal did receive two Appeals under section 42ZA of the 2007 Act from lay complainers in respect of the compensation awarded, or lack of compensation awarded, by the Law Society in making findings of unsatisfactory professional conduct. However both these Appeals were withdrawn once the lay complainers realised their potential liability for expenses.”

The 2010 Annual Report of the Scottish Solicitors Discipline Tribunal can be downloaded HERE (pdf)

The validity of the Legal Profession & Legal Aid (Scotland) Act 2007, which is now being questioned even by the Chairman of the SSDT, led to the creation of the equally anti-client Scottish Legal Complaints Commission, which has since been widely discredited by the media. The 2007 Act now appears to have resulted in little or no clean up of rogue elements inside Scotland’s infamously corrupt, solicitor monopolised legal services market.

With the revelations of the SSDT’s 2010 annual report that no cases have been passed to it for prosecution under the Legal Profession & Legal Aid (Scotland) Act 2007 which many viewed as a solution to the Law Society of Scotland’s self regulation of complaints against Scottish solicitors, consumer organisations & campaigners have heavily criticised the incompetence of the Scottish Parliament to ensure the 2007 Act produced real consumer protection against poor quality legal service providers.

One campaigner branded the legislation which was created after a year of debate on the subject, the Legal Profession & Legal Aid Act (2007), as “a worthless attempt by msps to reform the legal profession’s complaints system.”

Speaking further on the issue, he said : “The Scottish Parliament have not improved the complaints system of the legal profession. Instead they have actually made it worse. Now consumers are forced to deal with an equally one sided Scottish Legal Complaints Commission where complaints against ‘crooked lawyers’ are still sent back to the Law Society instead of being dealt with by any supposedly independent SLCC officials.”

An official from one of Scotland’s consumer organisations who spoke to Diary of Injustice late last week said she was surprised there had been no prosecutions of solicitors under the 2007 Act.

She claimed the SLCC lacked any will to do its job, citing an array of failures over the nearly three years the SLCC has existed, failures which include a refusal by the SLCC to monitor claims to the Law Society of Scotland’s Master Insurance Policy & Guarantee Fund compensation schemes, both of which which appear to victimise clients more than compensate them for losses suffered as a result of poor, negligent or even crooked legal service.

Law Society of Scotland sponsored amendments at Holyrood ensured complaints reforming legislation was completely compromised. One msp, who figured in the Scottish Parliament’s discussions over the LPLA Act, admitted the reforms were now wifely viewed as “useless”. He also alleged the Law Society of Scotland were allowed ‘too much leeway’ at the time to suggest or introduce amendments to the legislation which resulted in the LPLA Act being completely compromised in terms of its original aims.

The msp confirmed he currently receives significant correspondence from multiple constituents who have problems dealing with both the Law Society of Scotland and the Scottish Legal Complaints Commission over complaints against rogue solicitors. He branded both organisations as anti-consumer and accused the SLCC of being as bad as the Law Society over complaints investigations.

The Scottish Legal Complaints Commission has concentrated more on expenses claims, a huge bank balance & little action on complaints. Indeed, the Scottish Legal Complaints Commission has been so effective at regulating complaints, the SLCC’s latest annual report admitted it had only managed to uphold one complaint in a year, while enjoying a multi million pound cash rich bank balance many private companies would currently be envious of in today’s bleak financial outlook. I reported on the SLCC’s latest annual report and these revelations in an earlier article, here : ‘One complaint upheld’, 928 more sent back to Law Society & £1.8million spare cash : Scottish Legal Complaints Commission's 2010 annual report

The SLCC was asked for comment on the apparent lack of referrals for prosecution and asked for an explanation why no solicitors have been referred to or have been prosecuted before the SSDT.

A spokesperson for the SLCC replied : “The Scottish Legal Complaints Commission does not have the power to refer legal practitioners to the SSDT; referrals would be made by the Law Society of Scotland. You would therefore need to refer your question regarding the “…apparent lack of referrals for prosecution…” to the LSS.”

“Complaint numbers are certainly lower than originally predicted before the opening of the SLCC and this may be due to the economic downturn. You will have seen from the SLCC’s Annual Report that the largest business area for complaints was residential conveyancing and media reports currently indicate the market for the buying and selling of houses is depressed.”

Clearly a problem seems to exist where the Scottish Legal Complaints Commission appears to have no powers to refer cases directly to the Scottish Solicitors Discipline Tribunal, a matter now causing great concern to many consumers who feel, with significant justification, they cannot trust the one sided biased Law Society of Scotland or the now equally anti-client Scottish Legal Complaints Commission.

Given the SLCC appears to lack powers to refer cases directly to the tribunal, the organisation was asked by Diary of Injustice whether it would be seek an extension to its powers to enable it to bypass the Law Society and deal with the Scottish Solicitors Discipline Tribunal directly.

Their spokesperson replied to this query saying : “With regard to your question regarding the extension of our powers, the SLCC has no comment to make.”

While it is now apparent the Scottish Legal Complaints Commission lacks powers to be a credible regulator what is also apparent is the SLCC has no wish to improve its powers or role as the single gateway for complaints against Scottish solicitors. Can such a regulator be trusted ? I think not.

Here now follows the Sunday Mail’s report on the lack of prosecutions of rogue solicitors in Scotland :

WHERE DID THE DODGY BRIEFS GO ?

No new cases for two years

By Russell Findlay Sunday Mail March 06 2011

Legal watchdogs who strike off crooked lawyers have not received any new cases for the last two years.

The Scottish Solicitors’ Discipline Tribunal has not been sent a single professional misconduct case since a shake-up to legal complaints regulation in 2008.

Puzzled bosses at the Fie-based organisation don’t know why bent lawyers have stopped being reported.

Its 2009/2010 annual report, published this week, states “The tribunal is unaware of the reason why it has not received any professional misconduct cases under the 2007 Act as it would have expected that some conduct issues arising after October 1, 2008 would now have reached the tribunal”

The 2007 shake-up saw the creation of the Scottish Legal Complaints Commission to oversee all complaints about lawyers but it has been branded an expensive white elephant.

The SLCC sends misconduct complaints to the Law Society of Scotland who decide whether to pass them to the SSDT.

Legal reform campaigner Peter Cherbi called for a rethink of regulation. He added : “There should be a complete break from the Law Society rather than the SLCC halfway house whose board is comprised of ex-police officers, solicitors and quangocrats. I am shocked to learn the SSDT has not had a single case of prosecution referred under the 2007 legislation which created the hugely expensive SLCC, started up with 2 million of taxpayers money.”

SSDT clek Judith Lea said : "We don’t know what’s happened. Since the report we have received some cases but I don't know how many.”

The SLCC said : “We refer misconduct cases to the Law Society and it’s up to them to decide whether to refer them to the SSDT.”

Philip Yelland of the Law Society added : “Where the society considers there may be professional misconduct it does prosecute before the independent SSDT.”

Background to the Scottish Parliament’s consideration of the LPLA (Scotland) Bill (2006):

The bitter battle over the Scottish Parliament’s debate of the Legal Profession & Legal Aid (Scotland) Bill during 2006 saw officials from the Law Society of Scotland argue against the reforms and attempt to counter, even obstruct consumers testimony to msps. Clients who had been victimised by the legal profession were eventually allowed to speak before the Scottish Parliament's Justice 2 Committee, telling msps of their bitter, harrowing experiences with the Law Society of Scotland over complaints against solicitors & law firms.

The 2006 Justice 2 Committee of the Scottish Parliament's consideration of the LPLA Bill revealed many suspicious dealings over complaints against the legal profession, even implicating senior Law Society officials interference in complaints & financial claims made against ‘crooked lawyers.

The bitter, acrimonious debate at Holyrood reached such a point, the then Chief Executive of the Law Society of Scotland, Douglas Mill issued legal threats against the authority of msps & the Scottish Government to pass any legislation stripping the Law Society of its powers which allow lawyers to investigate themselves. The Law Society’s threat of a legal challenge was backed by a legal opinion from a Liberal Democrat English QC Lord Lester of Herne Hill. The opinion provided by Lord Lester claimed it was a lawyer’s human right to investigate their own colleagues.

While it had appeared at the time the Law Society’s threat of a legal challenge against the Scottish Government & Scottish Parliament’s attempt to pass the reforms had failed, several quiet changes to the wording of the LPLA Bill took place behind the scenes and further amendments were drafted which eventually resulted in the Law Society supporting the changes, which clearly amounted to the vested interests of the legal profession getting their way with msps over the interests of consumers.

Reference : The Scottish Solicitors Discipline Tribunal :

The Scottish Solicitors’ Discipline Tribunal claims to be an independent Tribunal constituted under the provisions of sections 50–54 of and Schedule 4 to the Solicitors (Scotland) Act 1980 (the 1980 Act) as amended in particular by the Legal Profession and Legal Aid (Scotland) Act 2007 (the 2007 Act). The Tribunal sits with two solicitor members and two lay members. The Tribunal claims independence of the Law Society of Scotland with none of the solicitor members being on the Council of the Law Society.

The lay members are drawn from a ‘wide variety’ of backgrounds, similar to the wide variety of backgrounds of those who sit on the board of the Scottish Legal Complaints Commission. All of the allegedly ‘independent’ Tribunal members are appointed by the Lord President. The Tribunal presently has 11 solicitor members and 12 lay members. The Tribunal operates under the Scottish Solicitors’ Discipline Tribunal Procedure Rules 2005 and the Scottish Solicitors’ Discipline Tribunal Procedure Rules 2008. All very independent, if of course, you think this is ‘independent’. You can find out more about the members of the Scottish Solicitors’ Discipline Tribunal HERE

Lawyers monopoly on legal services set to last until 2011 as MacAskill's 'dithering consultation' delays wider access to justice for Scots

Scottish Justice Secretary Kenny MacAskill today announced the long awaited 'consultation paper' on the Legal Profession Bill, which the Scottish Government claims will open up the Scottish legal services market to competition, a position which came about only after the Office of Fair Trading in 2007 ordered the current lawyer controlled monopoly on legal services to be ended.

The year long wait by Kenny MacAskill to do anything other than announce a rather long winded consultation document, which has been authored mostly by a consultation group comprising members of the Law Society of Scotland (who wish to retain market monopoly on legal services) questions any sentiments the move on the Scottish Government's part to widen access to justice is a genuine one.

Mr MacAskill it seems, prefers instead to stumble along at the slowest pace possible, at the behest of the likes of the Law Society of Scotland & Faculty of Advocates, to maintain the closed shop of legal services for as long as possible, where even after today’s consultation will end in April of 2009, it will take until at least mid 2010 to get the legislation into Parliament, in turn probably seeing no implementation until 2011 !

You can read my report relating to the OFT's 2007 announcement here : OFT recommends lifting of lawyers monopoly on access to justice & legal services in Scotland with Kenny MacAskill's fairly weak response here : MacAskill seeks 'Scottish Solution' amid Law Society arm twisting on legal reforms

The Law Society's pitiful proposals on opening the legal services market, with the proviso they are solely allowed to regulate it, can be read here : Law Society's proposals on legal services market overhaul spin wide of the mark on public interest with a further report here : MacAskill struggles to hold back 'Tesco Law' as Law Society dithers on access to justice reforms

Staggeringly, while Mr MacAskill was making the grandiose announcement today on his legal services consultation, there were revelations the Justice Secretary had made earlier attempts last week at the Scottish Parliament to kill off Petition 1197, brought about by Bill Alexander, the Chairman of the Association of Commercial Attorneys, who via his petition, is seeking to open the legal services market up, and allow Parliament a much speedier look this year at the advantages of an open legal services market model (where a host of qualified professionals could offer cheaper, more competitive and speedier legal services), as opposed to the Law Society of Scotland's preferred 'closed shop monopoly' model, where simply you have to use a Law Society controlled solicitor if you want access to justice, and of course be at the mercy of the Law Society's infamous lack of standards, regulation and control over its widely poor quality solicitor membership.

In stark ccontrast to today’s consultation announcement, Kenny Macaskill commented to the Scottish Parliament last week :

'”The Scottish Government believes that this legislation [the existing Sections 25-29 of the Law Reform (Misc Provisions) (Scotland) Act 1990 ]is appropriate to Scotland. It allows members of bodies who are not solicitors to apply for extensive rights to conduct litigation and of audience. It ensures that appropriate standards of conduct and practice are maintained in the Scottish courts.

It also safeguards the consumer in that the Lord President, in consultation with Scottish Ministers, will decide what in courts and in what cases it is appropriate for members of the applicant body to exercise those rights. In so doing, the Lord President and Scottish Ministers are mindful of the training and experience required of its members by the applicant body. Consequently, there are no plans at present to amend the system of authorisation for rights of audience"

However, the Justice Secretary went on to reveal in his comments to the Scottish Parliament that while he believed the law shouldn't change on legal services, the only application granted so far under present legislation was approved with severe restrictions and conditions, making a complete mockery of the concept of an open legal services market :

"The Lord President and Scottish Ministers have approved the scheme submitted by the Association of Commercial Attorneys for rights to conduct litigation and rights of audience subject to conditions. The Association has accepted those conditions."

You can read more about the conditions imposed on the Commercial Attorneys in a previous report on the issue I wrote here : Non-lawyer rights of audience approved ‘with restrictions’ as Scottish Government continues to waver on access to justice reforms

You can read Mr MacAskill's attempt to kill off any Parliamentary consideration of opening Scotland's legal services market this year, here : Kenny MacAskill - compention in legal services is generally not a good idea unless lawyers say so (pdf)

Anything for a little delay then, to protect the Law Society’s control over Scotland’s legal services market and the Scots public’s access to justice for a few years, forcing the public into using Scotland’s notoriously high cost, poor quality, and poorly regulated Law Society solicitor membership, who invariably end up ripping off clients on an unimaginable scale.

I will write more about Petition 1197 in a later article, but for now, here is Mr MacAskill’s announcement of the legal services consultation, along with details on how to participate, which I hope as many of you who can, will do so !

You can download a copy of the consultation direct, in Adobe Acrobat PDF format here : Wider choice and better protection: A consultation paper on the regulation of legal services in Scotland

Closing date for sending in the completed consultation to the Scottish Government is Friday 3 April 2009.

Please return your completed consultation document online to : Julie.Muir@scotland.gsi.gov.uk

You can also ask for a printed version of the consultation by contacting the Scottish Government direct at :

Legal System Division
Constitution, Law and Courts Directorate
Scottish Government
Area 2W
St Andrew's House
Regent Road
Edinburgh
EH1 3DG

Proposals for alternative business structures (ABS) for the legal profession in Scotland

Proposals for alternative business structures (ABS) for the legal profession in Scotland were today published for consultation by Justice Secretary Kenny MacAskill.

Some of the main proposals for inclusion in the forthcoming Legal Profession Bill include:

* Reform of the regulatory framework for legal services, and removal of the restrictions on the types of business models under which a solicitor can offer such services, while allowing the traditional business model to remain an option for those who choose to carry on practising within that structure.

* Regulation of ABS to apply to any other form of business where a legal professional is involved in the provision of legal services to third parties.

* ABS to be regulated by an approved regulator, authorised to regulate that form of business by Scottish Ministers, with the agreement of the Lord President.

* Professionals within that ABS to continue to be regulated by their own professional bodies.

* ABS and professionals working in them to continue to be subject to any subject-specific regulation (such as financial services and immigration advice).

* Outside ownership to be permitted where those holding an interest in a legal practice pass a "fit to own" test and comply with an appropriate code of conduct and

* The Governance of the Law Society to be reviewed and the regulatory arrangements for the Faculty of Advocates to be made clear.

Kenny MacAskill said:

"This is a once-in-a-generation opportunity to create a more flexible and modern regulatory framework for Scotland's legal services. A flourishing legal profession is a crucial part of the supportive environment for our businesses.

"The proposals put forward by the Law Society and Faculty of Advocates earlier this year made clear that the regulatory framework must be proportionate to the size and scope of the legal services market in Scotland. We want to avoid having too many bodies and unnecessary tiers of regulation. Instead we should concentrate on developing a robust system of regulation to protect the profession's core values and enshrine the profession's commitments to service, probity and excellence.

"We also want to avoid any confusion or disadvantage to consumers where there are new structures which may bring together different professions.

"I believe the proposals published today for consultation will help the profession to remain successful and innovative in the face of increased competition and in the difficult economic climate that we are all currently going through.

"I would encourage anyone with an interest in this important issue to have their say on the future of Scotland's legal services."

Which? submitted a super-complaint to the Office of Fair Trading (OFT) asserting that the current regulation of Scottish legal forms restricts choice to consumers and prevents the formation of alternative business structures (ABS). In its response the OFT did not assume that the changes being proposed in England and Wales at that time, and subsequently enshrined in the Legal Services Act 2007, would be automatically suitable for the Scottish market but it recommended that by the end of 2007 the Government should publish a statement detailing its policy views in response.

On November 1, 2007, the Law Society of Scotland published a consultation paper entitled 'The Public Interest: Delivering Scottish Legal Services - A Consultation on Alternative Business Structures".

Later that month Justice Secretary Kenny MacAskill outlined the Government's approach to Parliament which was unanimously endorsed. He asked Scotland's legal profession to meet the challenge of change in the light of a changing marketplace, both nationally and globally, and invited them to come forward with a Scottish solution.

The Scottish Government published its response to the OFT in December 2007 which detailed its policy views on lifting restrictions on ABS, where considered appropriate, for the Scottish legal services market.

The Society published detailed proposals and the Faculty of Advocates published their response in spring 2008. Kenny MacAskill welcomed these responses in Parliament on June 11, 2008.

To help inform the Government's proposals Kenny MacAskill set up a consultative group to explore these issues. Some of the country's leading legal and consumer experts were represented on it.

The Scottish Government today brings forward proposals for the Legal Profession Bill which the First Minister announced as part of the legislative programme on September 3, 2008. The proposals in this paper for a robust regulatory regime will allow alternative business structures to operate in an open, transparent and accessible way in Scotland's legal services market.

Legal Profession bill has little potential for change as Justice Secretary indicates no will to reform legal services

Justice Secretary Kenny MacAskill believes that lawyers should be trusted to regulate themselves and continue to run the ever important legal services market as a monopoly, despite the promise of the Legal Profession Bill, which aims to open up the public's access to justice after intervention from the OFT last year.

Mr MacAskill's all too easy dismissal of any further regulation or consumer protection against scandals in the legal world similar to those which have recently rocked the banking world, is echoed in the Scottish Government's questionable willingness to adopt the Law Society's edicts on the proposed legislation, which has now been almost completely hijacked by lawyers and vested interests from the legal establishment.

Kenny MacAskill – little independence from the Law Society of Scotland : "Our starting point for the Bill is to develop the proposals put forward by the Law Society and Faculty of Advocates earlier this year. Rather than ruling in or ruling out particular business models, I agree with the Law Society that the way forward is to concentrate on developing a robust system of regulation.”

So, from that early start, one can conclude fairly easily there will be not too much hope of anyone else getting much of a say in how to open the legal services market in Scotland if the Law Society has its way ... which certainly seems to be the case.

Mr MacAskill himself a solicitor, has spoken before of his muddled views, which have clearly indicated he and the SNP have no wish or desire to open the legal services market, preferring rather to keep it a closed shop for lawyers.

You can read more about Mr MacAskill's varying protectionist policy for legal services here : Justice Secretary rejects independent regulation of lawyers and public right of choice in legal services market

Mr MacAskill also lets slip his attitude against any increased regulation of the legal services sector, something the Law Society of Scotland is campaigning to retain sole regulatory power over by itself

Kenny MacAskill : "I have always been clear that the regulatory framework must be proportionate to the size and scope of the legal services market in Scotland. We must guard against having too many bodies and unnecessary tiers of regulation."

The Justice Secretary's view on regulation is certainly outdated in view of the recent financial crisis which crushed most of the UK's banks into nationalisation, effectively coming about due to poor regulatory structures which allowed banks and lenders to operate almost as they pleased, risking the publics money and now having to be bailed out by the taxpayer.

Mr Macaskill went on “This is a once-in-a-generation opportunity to create a more flexible and modern regulatory framework for legal services – but one which protects the profession's core values. The profession's commitments to service, probity and excellence are centuries old, but as relevant as ever."

Yes, quite right Mr MacAskill, a once in a generation opportunity, which you are not going to allow the rest of Scotland to enjoy, simply because the needs of the Law Society and the business of litigation must take preference over the public interest.

A suitable example of Mr MacAskill’s idea of a ‘flexible and modern regulatory framework’ can be found here : Call for MacAskill appointments 'sleaze investigation' as revelations show Legal Complaints Commission member was subject of Police inquiry

Kenny MacAskill – A debt too far from the SNP for lawyers ?

The remainder of Mr MacAskill's speech doesn't deviate much from the protectionist line for his colleagues in the legal profession, and indicates a Justice Secretary who only serves the needs of lawyers and their pockets, rather than putting the public's right of access to justice first.

In Kenny MacAskill's world, it will still be the legal profession who decide if you have a right of access to legal services, rather than you having a choice of legal services ... and that is most definitely not in the public interest .. is it …

The Scotsman reports (Kenny MacAskill)

Kenny MacAskill: Time to embrace change and face the future boldly

THE Scottish Government is committed to a strong and independent legal profession that can compete internationally, and a legal system which is part of the supportive environment for Scotland's businesses.

At a time of great challenges for the profession, it is even more important that it can grasp opportunities to develop new business and serve the public in new ways.

We have recently concluded our consultation on reforms to Scotland's arbitration legislation, which forms part of our drive to make Scotland a centre of excellence for arbitration and other forms of dispute resolution. I have also established a group of legal and business experts to look at how Scotland's legal system can be more attractive to businesses, and I look forward to their report in the next few weeks.

But the cornerstone of our strategy is the Legal Profession Bill, which was announced as part of this year's legislative programme.

The Bill will free up the profession to organise itself differently, to offer services to the public alongside other professionals, and to seek alternative sources of financial support to grow their business.

This is a once-in-a-generation opportunity to create a more flexible and modern regulatory framework for legal services – but one which protects the profession's core values. The profession's commitments to service, probity and excellence are centuries old, but as relevant as ever.

Our starting point for the Bill is to develop the proposals put forward by the Law Society and Faculty of Advocates earlier this year. Rather than ruling in or ruling out particular business models, I agree with the Law Society that the way forward is to concentrate on developing a robust system of regulation.

I have always been clear that the regulatory framework must be proportionate to the size and scope of the legal services market in Scotland. We must guard against having too many bodies and unnecessary tiers of regulation.

Regulation should also avoid any potential to confuse or disadvantage consumers where there are new structures which may bring together different professions.

That is a complex challenge, but one I am sure we can meet. I have been greatly encouraged by the willingness of the Law Society and the Faculty to embrace change, and I am determined to maintain the pace of reform in the coming months.

I intend to consult widely on the Government's proposals to allow new business structures to deliver legal services. But before putting these to the Scottish people I have asked some of the country's leading legal and consumer experts to join a new consultative group set up to explore these issues.

That group will help us shape a robust regulatory regime that will allow alternative business structures to operate in an open, transparent and accessible way in Scotland's legal services market.

As well as the president of the Law Society of Scotland, the dean of the Faculty of Advocates and the chief executive of the Scottish Legal Aid Board, leading officials from Consumer Focus Scotland and the Office of Fair Trading are taking part in this exercise, as is Professor Alan Paterson of Strathclyde University.

The group met for the first time on 8 October and made good initial progress. Issues being considered by it include how best to protect the core values of the legal profession and ensure a high quality of service; how to regulate firms that combine legal and other professional services; and how best to support access to justice in the new environment.

The group's deliberations will, together with views offered by other interested stakeholders, inform the public consultation which is expected to be held early next year, with the Bill expected to be introduced later in 2009.

The current economic situation is making life difficult for lawyers, just as it is for many businesses and families.

In that environment, the temptation is to resist change and seek safety in familiar ways of working. I believe we must do the opposite – be ready to embrace change and face the future boldly.

If we do, I have no doubt that the profession which has served Scotland so well over the last 300 and more years will continue to do so for decades to come.

• Kenny MacAskill is the Scottish justice secretary.