David Wolfe QC of Matrix Chambers argues: We will never get close to having an “independent, strong, diverse and effective legal profession” (which section 1 of the Legal Services Act 2007 sets as a regulatory objective for the regulators) if advocates providing a high-quality service to their clients remain undermined by others who are not even competent. Let’s not fool ourselves: we all know lawyers – including barristers, and including criminal advocates – who are just not up to it (perhaps they never were, perhaps they have lost their touch) at all levels, from magistrates’ court practitioners to QCs.

It is hard to feel sorry for senior law academics in these difficult economic times, with their secure, publicly-funded jobs and pensions, plus impressive career autonomy. But one had to sympathise a little with professors Richard Moorhead and David Kershaw – respectively of UCL and LSE – when they put forward the notion that transactional lawyers should have to bear responsibility for competent advice they give being used unlawfully. It has the appearance of an idea whose time is perhaps some way off. Courageously, they argue that giving advice and walking away from the consequences is against the public interest and at least should be the subject of regulatory intervention.

We are long overdue for lawyers and clients to work together more collaboratively in order to take the relationship to a more grown-up place and away from the current paradigm which is redolent of a couple of snot-nosed pre-schoolers sitting in a day-care sandpit flicking dog poo at one another with their plastic spades. The solicitor/client relationship can only evolve and develop, like every relationship, if it is founded on mutual trust, courtesy, respect and a desire to broaden the scope, breadth and depth of that relationship.

When law firms think about the new requirement to have risk registers and compliance plans in place, and for their COLP/COFAs to report breaches, most of them will tend to think that the only organisation that will take an interest in them if they don’t will be the Solicitors Regulation Authority. However, they would be mistaken, as professional indemnity insurers are also waiting in the wings.

I recently met the managing partner of a large law firm who was frustrated by the lack of return he was getting from his current investment in IT. He described it as a leaking bath: “The tap keeps running but the water level stays the same.” He explained the technology supporting his business had reached a point where it was very complex and costly to make a simple change because of the consequential impact across his IT stack. The problem he described is common and stems from the way IT has developed over the years.