Post-Brexit the separation of powers could be said to be all that is holding this nation together. The Executive is in tatters and Parliament has entered a hiatus without an effective opposition. The only element of our constitutional framework which carries on without pause is the judiciary. It’s a moving proposition to think that those who daily work in courts and public services decimated by cuts are the ones who right now form the only fully functioning element of government.

You may have heard of Sir David Brailsford CBE. He is the former performance director of British Cycling and currently the manager of professional cycling’s Team Sky. He is also credited for championing the notion of ‘marginal gains’, a phrase that has now become commonplace in the world of elite sport. It’s a world in which the difference between winning and losing – a podium-finish and an also-ran – can be minute. Marginal gains is about making tiny positive changes across the board that will ultimately add up to significant improvements to secure a competitive edge.

On the whole, most of the proposed changes seem sensible, although an unexpected proposal is a change to the definition of client money, so that money received in advance for the payment of the firm’s fees and disbursements for which the solicitor is liable (for example counsel fees and expert fees) will in future be office money. Currently, for the majority of practices, money in advance for fees must be held in client account until an invoice is raised. It is difficult to understand why the SRA is looking to make a change here.

Law firms spend less than other comparable sectors on IT investment – just 4.1% of turnover, compared to consultancy (4.9%), and accountancy (5.1%), according to our latest research. Equally, displaying conservatism towards innovation as well as investment, a third of law firms have not been involved in any business innovations in the last two years, a considerably higher percentage than both accountants (22%) and consultants (19%).

It’s shorter, but there are two. Gone are outcomes, indicative behaviours and the rather confusing definition of the word ‘you’ to mean just about anybody, depending on its context. However, there are now two codes, one for individuals and one for firms, again aimed at making it a bit clearer as to where responsibility lies.