When it comes to business, there’s no point in having a plan A unless you’ve got a plan B. While plan A might be the route to profits, plan B is the means of surviving, whatever challenges you come up against. Every business is at risk of potential natural or man-made disasters. Despite our wishful thinking, sometimes the dreaded ‘what if’ scenarios become a harsh reality. While we all hope for the best, it’s essential to prepare for the worst. Then there are minor interruptions which, with adequate forethought, can be circumnavigated completely. So, what’s your plan to recover from disaster and get back on track to plan A? And, what’s your plan for continuing running your business during lesser disturbances?

It was only in January that I wrote how we religiously attend meetings of the Solicitors Regulation Authority’s board. Well, may the appropriate deity (the SDT?) forgive me, because we lapsed only a week or so later: the meeting was being held in Birmingham and such was the paucity of the agenda that it simply didn’t justify the time or cost of the trip. But now we can drop the habit for good as the SRA has decided to stop open meetings altogether and limit reporters to a briefing afterwards.

In part one of this blog, I set out what the Solicitors Regulation Authority (SRA) says it is concentrating on as ‘priority risks’, and some others that they have missed. These are the ‘imminent threats’ to the profession and the users of legal services, and it is absolutely right for the SRA to focus on them. However, instead of these priority risks, here is what you are likely to hear most about this year, ranging from Handbook reform, the unregulated sector and the SQE, to transparency, independence from the Law Society, and enforcement.

A big part of my job is to keep up-to-date with the legal press. Especially what’s going on at the Solicitors Regulation Authority (SRA) and other regulators, so I can then give our clients a heads-up about what’s on the horizon. As we settle into 2017, I can’t help thinking that the SRA is looking in the wrong direction. There is not enough focus on the real risks, the things that profoundly threaten the legal profession and the public.

A report from the Christensen Institute for Disruptive Innovation warns that law schools in the US are “in crisis” and doomed unless they must respond positively to the “disruption of the traditional model for the provision of legal services”. The report relishes the coming of Armageddon by a sector whose financial viability it says will soon be choked off by the transformation of the legal market. How does this thesis stack up from the other side of the Atlantic?