In an exclusive blog for this website, Baroness Ruth Deech, chair of the Bar Standards Board, addresses the increasingly strident criticism from criminal law barristers about the impending Quality Assurance Scheme for Advocates (QASA).

What many personal injury (PI) firms have long feared is finally upon us, and there is no turning back. Earlier this month justice secretary Chris Grayling confirmed the cut to fixed fees for low-value RTA cases from £1,200 to £500. Of course, the decision to reduce fees by £700 was so well thought through, wasn’t it? The last few months have been reminiscent of the tale of the Emperor’s new clothes. Whilst the majority of realists on the ground have been shouting the obvious problems with the proposed changes, those close to Grayling have ignored the madness of the naked truth.

Some colleagues and I flew to Scotland last month to visit our members north of the border. Whilst we were sitting in the departure lounge, waiting for our delayed flight, we were approached by someone conducting a survey for the Civil Aviation Authority. Being an amenable bunch, focused on helping organisations improve customer service, we happily took part. We were asked a series of questions about who we were, where we were flying, why, how we’d booked our tickets and so on. Most of our answers were very positive. So why then, when asked to rate our overall experience on a scale of 1-10, did we only score it a 4?

When attempting to put a value on your firm, never has the quotation of economist Jonathan Reeves been more appropriate: “Something is only worth what somebody is willing to pay for it.” There will be those who will try and put an arbitrary value on your firm, but can you be sure this isn’t just to entice your custom? Then only later on do you find out that the reality of the market is somewhat different, or that a simple multiple of net profit is too blunt an instrument.

A number of positives are revealed in a recent survey conducted by the Solicitors Regulation Authority. Most notably, a year after the implementation of outcomes-focused regulation (OFR) and perhaps understandably, firms’ attitudes are shifting towards greater levels of acceptance as they increase their experience of working with the new regime of regulation. Measuring the impact of OFR on firms, released last week, found that 50% of respondents felt ‘favourable’ about OFR, a welcome increase on the previous year’s 36%. However, that still leaves the other 50% to be convinced.