The online juggernaut

I listened in to an interesting webinar last night, organised by Epoq legal, the title of which was ‘Brands won’t kill law firms, customers will’.  Joining Epoq’s representative, Jon Busby, were Michael Scutt and Amanda Bancroft.  Michael’s day job is as a partner at City firm Dale, Langley & Co but he is also a well-known commentator on issues thrown up by the Legal Services Act   (his blog can be found at http://troubleahead.co.uk/feed/) and other issues in the legal services market such as the increasing use of technology.  Amanda Bancroft is a former barrister who now works as a digital strategist creating strategies and tools for the legal and pharma worlds.

The main focus for the webinar (not surprisingly, bearing in mind it was organised by a pioneer of online legal solutions) was the move towards online legal advice.  Much of the discussion centred around the extent to which the legal market was prepared for the inevitable shift towards web-based delivery of legal services, the extent to which this should and might take place, and the drivers for it. 

Amongst various issues discussed, three stood out.  First was Amanda’s contention that there is a very prevalent misconception amongst the legal profession at the moment that online provision of services is necessarily of a lower quality than face-to-face provision.  Amanda argued that there is no reason why lawyers cannot provide quality service using digital formats.  This led into discussion about the mix, or blend, between online services and face-to-face services.  One school of thought is that the online part of the package should be limited to the data capture side of things, whereas the high value, ‘intellectual’ advice should still be given face-to-face. Amanda’s argument was that online provision should not be limited to that level of advice/work, but that as more and more clients are happy to, and indeed expect to, sit in front of a computer screen and access information and advice, the scale of legal services provided in that way should consequently move on and up.  During the webinar the report from Peppermint Technology Limited, published in October and purporting to show what clients really want from their lawyers, was mentioned.  These figures have been bandied round the legal press, but it is worth noting them again – 96% of businesses surveyed wanted to have the option to communicate with their legal adviser online, and 81% of consumers surveyed were in favour of out of hours services. 

The second interesting point related to data capture and mining, and how far behind the curve law firms are on this.  With sites such as comparethemarket.com, and moneysupermarket.com, consumers are becoming more familiar with these kind of activities and view them as necessary and even useful, whilst lawyers still see them as disengaging and offputting.  Consumers have already been educated in this type of activity, and lawyers should try and benefit from this.

The third interesting point related to which way round law firms approach the issue of technology and online advice.  Is the ultimate driver what the client thinks is appropriate, or what the solicitor thinks is appropriate?  Jon Busby made the point that the fundamental principle behind Apple’s success is that they always put the customer at the centre.  We all know of law firms who have spent lots of time and money taking steps that they think the client wants, which are not then taken up by clients as in fact the clients didn't want them in the first place.  A survey done for one firm was mentioned, where the lawyers were asked what they thought was important to their clients, and clients were asked what was in fact important to them.  Pretty much opposing responses were received, with for example the lawyers putting ‘good drafting’ very high up and ‘staying in touch with the client’ very low down, and the clients doing the opposite. 

With all of this comes the important caveat that many lawyers are so busy doing their day-jobs and keeping on top of their work, that they haven’t got the time to consider let alone strategise about these types of issues.  However, it is vital that they do, as the online juggernaut will not be stopped and in order for many firms to survive they need to take up space in this market rather than leaving it exslusively to the technology companies.

The Perfect Storm?

Much as October 6^th has passed with a whimper rather than a bang in terms of ABSs (although at least with Premier Property Lawyers we do have one ABS now in existence), this hasn’t stopped the national press highlighting the changes in the legal market and commenting on them.  From Radio 4 debates to the front of the Business pages of many of the Broadsheets, the liberalisation of the market has been a hot topic.

Coinciding well with all of this has been the Espirito Santo Investment Bank report on the impact on the market.  The headlines make eye-catching reading, from ‘Perfect Storm spells the end for thousands of solicitors’ to a ‘seismic’ upheaval of Britain’s consumer legal market.  Whilst it must be remembered that the Bank is hoping gain a lot of clients and traction in the external investment market (they are currently advising Irwin Mitchell among others on their options for seeking external capital) the report is nevertheless a timely reminder to those in the ‘consumer’ legal market that standing still is not going to be an option.  As well as focusing on the retail end of the market, the report also deals with the top end, arguing that even the large City firms will not be immune from the changes.  Chiming with the greater proportion of commentators in the market, the report predicts that medium-sized City firms will be particularly badly affected. 

Much as the rules now allow for external investment, many firms have found over the last couple of years that the expectations of external investors are pretty high and do not sit comfortably with the sort of returns traditionally generated by law firms.  The report states that business angels would expect annual returns of 60-70%, private equity around 30-35%, and even public companies 12-20%.  It’s clear that for those firms who are serious about attracting external investment, the spotlight will very much be on the ‘business’ of the firm. 

On a final note, this week also sees the launch of yet another franchise, Simplify the Law.  This one appeals to me especially as its key message is the importance of client communication.  Co-founder Jonathan Brewer argues that clear and proactive communication will be the difference between success and failure for law firms. It’s always good to see someone singing from the same hymn sheet as yourself (see my last post…..)

It's personal.....

“We never listen when we are eager to speak” (Francois de La Rochefoucauld); “Many can argue – not many converse” (A. Bronson Alcott); “Communication skills are the lifeblood of a successful life….if you plan on spending any time there” (Doug Firebaugh)

Amidst all the discussion of the ‘Legal Big Bang’ and the implications of both this, and other market pressures, for lawyers, one challenge is constantly referred to; the need for lawyers to set themselves apart. 

Knowledge of the law will be a given for qualified solicitors (as opposed to the large numbers of paralegals and law graduates who may well flood the market to a greater extent in ‘legal roles’).  So although focusing on legal knowledge may set qualified solicitors apart from non-qualified legal workers, it won’t work in the main as a focus for setting themselves apart from other solicitors (though I appreciate that Quality Solicitors might have something to say about this contention).  What about commercial awareness?  Again, I think that this is pretty much a given. Much as lawyers like to talk about this as if it’s a new concept, an understanding of your client’s business has been important since time immemorial.

I think it’s important to go back to basics and this is especially relevant when grappling with issues (as many firms are now) such as where does a solicitor add value.  Ultimately solicitors provide a personal service to their clients. What counts is their ability to interact, communicate and build relationships with their clients.  An ability to communicate well, interact well, and have effective and profitable relationships with clients and potential clients will help to set individual lawyers apart from other lawyers less adept at these skills.  Mastering these softer skills has always been important but will, I am convinced, become even more vital as lawyers attempt to differentiate themselves and strive to be ahead of the pack. 

Another First on the Blocks

Acculaw……….not sure about the name, but what a great idea, especially when the estimated cost for recruiting and training one graduate is £175,000.  Like QualitySolicitors, you may be able to pick a few holes in the concept and the strategy, but you have to applaud Susan Cooper for being a first-mover and taking the bull by the horns.

There is no doubt that many firms wrestle with what is the best and most cost-effective way to go about trainee recruitment and the vagaries of the market make this a moving target.  The benefits that Acculaw aim to provide then, in terms of flexibility and lower cost, are evidently going to appeal to many firms. 

Any extra vehicle through which the overly numerous budding lawyers can ensure qualification and justify the huge expense of their degree and post-graduate studies has to be a positive step for them as well. 

However, I must confess to being surprised at Acculaw’s assertion that they are in advanced discussions with several City law firms and suspect that any involvement from such firms would be fairly one-sided in favour of the firm rather than the trainee.  My experience of these types of law firms (and I trained and qualified at one myself) is that they aim to produce ‘branded’ lawyers at the end of the training process.  By this I mean individuals who are fully steeped in the practices, processes and culture of the firm. Such individuals are also given the benefit of a full in-house training programme during their training contracts, spread over the two-year period.  Surely having trainees ‘dipping in and out’ would hinder this process. My suspicion is that whilst the big firms might look at this type of arrangement as expedient in terms of cost and flexibility (and indeed Tony Angel, former Linklaters senior partner has welcomed the initiative), they would be unlikely to take such a trainee on at qualification. 

Lawyers →→Project Managers?

Picking up on my theme of blank sheets of paper (see previous post) the phrase has been used by Professor Richard Susskind in his afterword to a recent report on General Counsels (GCs).  The context for this reference is the evolution of the relationship between large law firms and GCs with one of the four main strategies that GCs could (and should) be embracing being to start with a blank sheet of paper and undertaking a comprehensive legal needs analysis for the business. 

Of course many of the big in-house teams have been doing this already, as have many of the large legal firms.   I recall a conference two years ago where the head of IT at one of the large City practices discussed the process her firm had recently undertaken of breaking down the value chain and apportioning off work accordingly; apparently the value chain was broken down into ten distinct stages, and the process was pretty searching and difficult.  Professor Susskind refers to this process as “legal process analysis” leading to multi-sourcing, where the legal requirements of an individual matter or a whole business are analysed to determine the most efficient way of sourcing each element of it.  One of the driving factors for this type of process is of course the development in the ways in which ‘legal’ input is provided, from the use of paralegals, offshoring, outsourcing, automation and so on. 

One possible outcome of this type of approach is that lawyers become more like ‘project managers’ and therefore need to develop new skills.  Lawyers could be spending more of their time co-ordinating the legal process as a whole for the client whilst not taking an active part in all the areas of advice.   As with the argument that not all lawyers are good business people, I wonder how lawyers may cope with such a role. 

On the subject of automation, every time I read another press release (or Legal Futures update) on yet another development in the online legal document/automation market, I always think of the Practical Law Company (PLC) and how quiet it seems to be.  Whilst I appreciate that PLC is offering a completely different service (it is a subscription-based service offered to law firms) automated documentation and similar ideas have been available from PLC for a good few years.  When in practice I always had the impression that PLC was taking over the legal world, hence my surprise at its silence now.  With all these new automated document services cropping up, using completely different and competitive pricing structures, I wonder what effect there might be on PLC’s business model.

Fresh start - new entrant or existing player?

One of the things I keep reading about at the moment is the advantage that new entrants to the legal market have in terms of starting from scratch.  The argument goes that existing firms, with their clumsy decision-making structures, established ways of doing things, entrenched office politics, and so on, do not have the vision or agility to take the bold and adventurous decisions necessary to be sufficiently innovative and move their businesses forward in the new competitive market place. 

For someone starting afresh, however, with a blank sheet of paper, it will be much easier to think strategically about what their business will be, and then set up all the necessary elements accordingly.  This includes the business structure, marketing strategy, internal make-up, use of technology, and so on.  By way of example, we all know the difficulties of building up and adding on bits of IT over time – a new business can (finance depending) ensure that it has the required, up to date, technology from the word go, with all the various elements co-ordinating together nicely. 

However, I think an important element to add to this debate is knowledge of the legal world, and most specifically knowledge of what the client wants.  Those who have been practising for a while, especially those who have also been involved in the running of their own practice, will have an important insight into lawyers, the legal market, and how clients interact with lawyers and view them. 

For this reason, talk of ‘blank canvases’ and so on should I think distinguish between those coming into the market for the first time, and existing market participants making a fresh start.  It is the latter category that excites me the most – and the one where I think there is most potential for successful growth in the new legal world.  Lawyers who have entrepreneurial tendencies, who are able to assess the market in a strategic and rational way, but who have the knowledge and contacts/clients that they have built up over their time working in the sector.  Many of these lawyers may well be feeling frustrated in their existing practices (I have certainly met more than my fair share over the last year or so). If they cannot convince their practices to take the new challenges seriously and consider change where necessary, moving on and setting up afresh might be their best option for a successful future in the law.  However, this is obviously something that is easier said than done – starting up a practice takes a certain type of person and no matter how good the business plan, more risk than most lawyers are accustomed to taking. 

There are options emerging in some of the franchise models that we are reading about increasingly in the legal press.  Aside from these, I am fascinated to see how many new, smallish firms are set up by disgruntled associates/junior partners who have a clear idea about the way forward for the future, but a firm unwilling or unable to move in that direction.  All the talk is of the Legal Services Act leading to a loss of 3,000 firms, but it is quite likely that there may be at least some movement in the opposite direction. 

Consumer redress - one port of call?

Remember a few months ago when the talk was of a single regulator for all lawyers in the new legal world?  Charles Plant first mentioned it as a possible outcome at the Legal Futures conference back in April, and a report by Nick Smedley, commissioned by the LSB, stated in June that a single regulator for all legal services is “logical and plausible”. 

At the time this got me thinking about consumer redress, and whether a similarly simple model could be the answer.  Consumer confusion, and gaps in consumer protection, are big themes at the moment.    The LSB is obviously looking at this with its latest discussion paper, and the imminent opening up of the market makes this a key area.  The LeO has just recently warned that the overlap between regulated and unregulated legal services is causing consumer confusion, with online services posing particular difficulties.   

Consumers need and want simplicity.  If they have been provided with a ‘legal’ (in its broadest sense) service, and they are unhappy with such service, they need to know clearly and quickly what body they should be approaching to deal with their concern.  So what about having one body?  Once in contact with this body, their issue would then get farmed off to the appropriate department, depending on whether or not the service carried out constituted a reserved activity or not, and through what type of entity. 

Is this a pipe dream? Certainly at the moment.  Setting aside the immediate problem of how one would define ‘legal services’, and issues such as the extent of self-regulation, the change would entail yet more disruption, with all the cost that brings, to the existing structure and bodies.  However, from the consumers’ point of view, one port of call, with further direction being led by those in the know, would make life a lot simpler.  Might this help in the legal profession’s battle to show that it is open and accountable? 

Partners v Business Experts - who should run firms?

The issue of the suitability of partners to run a business is one that has been debated for a long time.  It has been brought into sharper focus by the Legal Services Act - indeed one of the 'threats' of the market shake-up often highlighted for traditional law firms is the new competition from businesses run in more efficient and effective ways. 

Traditionally, a trainee qualified, was hopefully taken on by his or her firm, slowly worked their way through their years' PQE, until they had enough years under their belt to be considered for partnership.  Although this is a significant generalisation, if an assistant/associate was good at the job of 'lawyering', they would get accepted into the partnership.  Business acumen, and indeed the basic ability to run a business, were not necessarily factors. 

Things have changed now, in that business development, networking, people-skills and so on are much more relevant in firms both large and small when considering who to take into the partnership.  However, there is no doubt that there are still many law firm partners out there who, though very good at their 'day job' are not naturally suited to running a business (and indeed often would prefer not to). 

This is something that the SRA has recognised and decided to deal with.  The introduction of principle number eight in the new Code of Conduct, which states that that firms and solicitors must: "run [their] business or carry out [their] role in the business effectively and in accordance with proper governance and sound financial and risk management principles", is a significant departure.   This is backed up to an extent by the Chapter 7 outcomes and indicative behaviours on management of the business.  However, there is no doubt that for many law firms there is still a long way to go in terms of running the firm as well as possible.

So, what's the answer?  The last ten years or so (probably extended to 20 years for the larger firms) have seen the rise of the 'Business Director' (or similarly named role) - an external, non-lawyer brought in to run the business.  However, for many firms this hasn't been as successful as hoped, and I think that much of this is down to lawyers' natural assumption that they are more than capable of running the business on their own, and perhaps a little bit of professional snobbery (who are you to tell us how to run our business.....).  For the outsiders'/consultants' view on this, there is an interesting linked-in discussion thread http://www.linkedin.com/groupItem?view=&gid=3572215&type=member&item=54725293&qid=18a5fad3-5aca-4cb2-b665-4b3933127566&trk=group_most_popular-0-b-ttl&goback=%2Egmp_3572215

Jeremy Hand, who set up private equity firm Lyceum Capital in 2008 specifically to look into investment into the legal sector, stated at a conference around that time that law firms have unbelievable profit margins but cannot run themselves.  At the time one got the sense that he was rubbing his hands with glee at the prospect of the money that could be made out of the legal sector. Of course, Lyceum has since directed its focus towards legal process outsourcing, and other private equity houses have been targeting the legal publishing market.  How much of this is down to the difficulties encountered when actively considering investing into a law firm run by lawyers? 

Of course there are many firms that are run fantastically well by their managing partners/governing board/whatever partnership management structure is in place.  This applies across the country and across all size of firm.  However, there is no doubt that the opening up of the market puts this issue into sharper focus and it will be interesting to see how the debate develops and what happens in practice. 

Education and Training up next......

The legal market is certainly not standing still at the moment.  The latest area to hit the headlines over the last few weeks has been legal education and training.  The consultation panel for the 'Review 2020' (as the overall education and training review being carried out by the SRA, Bar Standards Board and ILEX Professional Standards is now being referred to) was of course announced a few weeks ago, and will be led jointly by Sir Mark Potter (a former Court of Appeal judge) and Dame Janey Gaynor (former senior partner of Simmons & Simmons).  In addition to this, the SRA, with all that spare time on its hands, has launched its first review of solicitors' CPD obligations for more than 25 years, which will feed into the Review 2020. 

Meanwhile, various insitutions and firms are announcing new and innovative courses and schemes in the field.  Most newsworthy at the moment is the New College of the Humanities, the private for profit undergraduate college set up by Professor Grayling.  This development has been much discussed both in the mainstream press and the legal press and social media.  The law degree offered by NCH will however be a 'traditional' LLB, with graduates needing to take the usual further steps for full qualification.  Taking a different approach, Northumbria University has recently announced a five-year M Law Full Qualification Degree, a degree which leads to full qualification as a solicitor.  Then you have the College of Law unveiling its plans to launch a two-year law degree (costing £18,000 in total, which corresponds to one year of fees at NCH), and BPP University College last year becoming a private university.  Not quite as recent, but certainly high up in the innovation stakes, York Law School (the law department of York University) is now coming to the end of its third year in action. Its problem-based learning approach distinguishes it from other law degrees. I must declare an interest at this stage as I do some tutoring on the course, but there is no doubt that students coming out of this course have a very different skill set (and in my view superior one in terms of preparing them for practice) than students from more traditional courses.

Then you have the issue of aptitude tests for LPC students, again something that is being heavily debated in the legal press at the moment with recent reports being produced both for the Law Society and the Legal Services Board.

Then you have innovative approaches from law firms such as Leeds-based Gordons.  Gordons has launched an apprenticeship scheme for school leavers that will enable them to become legal practitioners without going to university at all.  The four-year programme, starting this September, is aimed at youngsters who would otherwise find it difficult to enter the profession, and apparently came about as a result of the Managing Partner watching the BBC programme Who Gets the Best Jobs?

There is so much commentary about what the legal market will look like in a few years time with the introduction of ABSs.  What there is no doubt about is the increase in diversity of those offering legal advice to the public, so it seems fitting that methods of entrance into the legal profession are becoming similarly diverse.

Traditional model not yet dead in the water?

Surveys obviously need to be taken with a large dose of care, but a couple of recent ones can give heart to those banging the drum of the traditional legal model.  First, a survey run by legal PR and marketing agency RTS Media has found that just 3% of consumers rate a recognisable brand such as Tesco, the Co-op or the AA as an important factor when choosing a law firm.  Personal recommendation was the most important factor in choosing a lawyer (43%). Being able to call a lawyer directly (5%) and location (4%) also came ahead of "a brand that I recognise".  (Trowers & Hamlins might want to consider that lowly 4% figure in the light of their announcement that they are opening a new office in Birmingham.......)

Meanwhile, research conducted by YouGov on behalf of the Legal Services Board has found that face-to-face advice remains important to clients in several key areas of work, especially family matters and will-writing.  (Thank you as ever to Neil Rose of Legal Futures for his reporting of these developments).  YouGov's qualitative research with dissatisfied clients showed "clearly" that clients felt face-to-face contact at the outset would have prevented the poor service received.  The research also showed "unlike other services such as insurance......choosing a legal service provider is very much down to reputation and past experience."

Of course surveys come out every other week showing something that each side of the 'modernisation' debate can point to, but what I think generally comes out is that law is an area where the personal angle, and the comfort and security generated by leaving your matter in the hands of someone properly qualified, is still so important.  Will this persist? I wonder whether commentators on the opticians market were saying the same thing 20 years ago.......

Speaking of the LSB, Chris Kenny, the Chief Executive, created a bit of a stir last week with his warning that many lawyers are missing the chance to learn from substantial numbers of consumers who make a complaint.  Certainly it seems that law firms can be dismissive and defensive when dealing with client complaints and this is something that could be improved upon, both for the reputation of the profession as a whole and for individual firms wanting to retain genuinely dissatisfied clients.   Of course customer service has always been important to the legal profession - think of all those old detective novels where the old family solicitor has served the family so well for generations......However, what I think has changed now is that there is much more of a culture of expecting good customer service, and being willing to complain if that is not met.  This applies across all industries, and the law can no longer rely on its exalted and professional status to remain immune to this. 

Amidst all the fuss, remember the basics

Whether you see law firm management as an exciting place to be at the moment, or a daunting one, there is no doubt that those involved are being kept busy.  What with the uncertainty over the 6th October date for ABSs, the introduction of OFR, and other market issues such as the extent to which law firms should be outsourcing, using social media and so on, there is a lot to keep law firm management up at night.  However, it is vital that management remain focused on the essentials:

• what type of client do we want?
• what type of work do we want to do for them?
• how can we create value for them?
• where is our competition? and
• how can we carve out a successful position for ouselves?

All things should then flow from this framework.  So, decisions about your firm's structure (do you keep it as it is, do you look to merge, do you look to become an MDP, do you incorporate and look to external investment) should flow from your answers to the above.  Similarly, decisions about your marketing strategy and use of social media; utilisation of on-line legal advice and drafting capabilities; whether to join a national brand; whether to compete on fees or quality; all of this should flow from your answers to the above.

Yes, it is vital to keep on top of market and regulatory developments (one of the most significant of which at the moment is actually the debate over reserved activities, and the possibility that we will end up with activity-based regulation rather than reserving an activity solely to lawyers), but it is equally vital to analyse and consider them in the context of your firm's overall strategy. 

Why wait until October?

What is interesting about recent moves such as the creation of In-Deed and the launch of Panone's stand alone white label division, Affinity Solutions, is that these have all happened before 6th October 2011 - in other words before the 'Big Bang' date for legal services.   

A year ago all the talk was about who would be the first-movers in the ABS market.  What the last year has shown is that it has been possible to come up with innovative ideas and structures within the existing regulatory environment, without having to wait for the new, more flexible regime.  Of course some of the recent developments have taken place in anticipation of the changes, in that they wll be looking to take advantage of the opportunities under the Legal Services Act once ABSs are authorised.  This includes In-Deed, the new online conveyancing service launched by the founder of property website Rightmove, which has stated that some of the money it raises from its intended AIM float could be used to help panel firms that need to invest in training, technology and customer service.  Other recent developments have taken place in response to the changes provided for the in the Legal Services Act - I would include in this Quality Solicitors, with its emphasis on the quality and professionalism that clients (or should that be consumers) will be getting. 

In fact there has been so much activity in the market that one almost wonders why the profession needed the Legal Services Act to galvanise it into action.  An even more interesting question is the extent to which these moves are motivated by the upcoming regulatory changes, as opposed to the other market pressures which are so widely commented on, for example: the pressure on fees stemming from the strained economic environment; the rise of legal process outsourcers and legal publishers; the increased demands for improved client service and online capabilities from the younger generations; and so on.  Whatever the case, when you distil down what has been happening, it's quite an eye-opener.  Look at this brief list of what new themes have been emerging:

• national networks, both non-branded (such as GetSolicitors) and branded (such as Quality Solicitors);
• online legal advice portals (such as Expert Answers);
• referral services (such as Bid4Fees);
• find a lawyer websites; and
• the comparison websites (such as Wigster, LegalCompare.com).

Whatever your views might be on these developments, there is no doubting that the last year or so has seen significant moves in the industry.  

Breakthrough thinking for lawyers

There are so many challenges facing law firms at the moment that it can be hard to know where to start.  Significant regulatory change, the threat of new competition and ways of working, continued pressure on fees, the rise of online legal advice, the continued bank squeeze on overdraft arrangements……………..the list goes on.  Most firms are focusing on ways of differentiating themselves from the competition, but how can this be done effectively and how can firms be sure they are going down the correct route?  At an individual level, what new skills should lawyers be learning in order to succeed in the new legal market?

This is where the Insights Shed can help.  Both on an individual level, and at the strategic firm level, the Insights Shed can introduce lawyers to a series of processes, tools and insights which represent breakthrough thinking for the legal market.   These are aimed both at increasing the effectiveness and skills-base of lawyers and at helping law firms and in-house teams meet the challenges of the new legal world in a creative and optimal way.  Have a look at the website http://www.theinsightsshed.com/use-us/legal-market/#information and see what you think. 

First ABS regulator announced

So the Council for Licensed Conveyancers (CLC) have become the first licensing authority for alternative business structures (ABSs). This is despite concerns over both the limited nature of CLC's experience and the lack of clarity on the CLC's separate business rules. 

With the Bar Standards Board having recently taken the decision that it will regulate advocacy focused ABSs (albeit with restrictions in place meaning that they will be very different entitities from other ABSs), and the SRA having obtained the 'yes' vote needed to clear the way for their application to become an ABS licensing authority, things are definitely moving on. 

However, there is doubt about the start date of 6th October.  There is a lot of work still be done, and parliamentary steps to be taken.  Justice Minister Jonathan Djanogly refused to confirm that ABSs will start on this date when questioned at a recent Legal Week forum, and Legal Services Board Chairman David Edmonds apparently sent out the same message at a recent Legal Futures Conference.  The SRA are still working on their ABS application documentation and one suspects that in order to be anywhere near ready to accept ABS applications by 6th August will take a herculean effort.