As insurance companies look to form alternative business structures, the traditional legal sector can no longer just raise an eyebrow – we need to take a much more serious look at the practicalities and ethicalities involved. Purists will argue that placing insurers anywhere near the helm of a public-serving legal practice can only have a negative impact on the culture of the organisation, and ultimately, the level of service provided. And they would have a point.

External equity has been allowed in law firms since the start of last year, and there’s still plenty of talk about investing in law firms. The Law Society law management section’s annual financial benchmarking survey, published in January, revealed that one in five respondents were likely to seek external investment for expansion. But for the rest, there is no reason why independent firms cannot prosper provided that they are prepared to make some changes and understand the areas where they can compete effectively.

Many software applications deliver significant value in their own right, but the art of getting them to work in harmony is complex, time consuming and expensive. A change to one software application will most likely have an impact elsewhere in the firm’s technology stack. The result is that firms are reaching a point of complexity where a disproportionate amount of their investment is spent on simply ensuring all their software applications continue to work together.

Let’s assume you already know you have to report material compliance failures to the Solicitors Regulation Authority (SRA) as soon as reasonably practicable. That begs the BIG question: what does a material compliance failure really look like. In the brave new world of outcomes-focused regulation, there’s no definition of material compliance failure and the SRA isn’t forthcoming with any real guidance or examples. Instead, you’re expected to work it out for yourself, taking into account all relevant factors.

‘Tesco Law’ is a phrase that, thankfully, is finally dying out as the reality of alternative business structures (ABSs) takes hold, but what it represents – big brands entering the legal market – has become truer than ever this week. First there was Direct Line Group’s long-awaited announcement of its plans to set up a law firm, and then on Wednesday we revealed that the Stobart Group has added an ABS to its barrister service.