Yesterday’s announcement that Lord Chancellor Chris Grayling had rejected the Legal Services Board’s (LSB) recommendation that will-writing become a reserved legal activity was not a total shock. I reported in February that the LSB was nervous given Mr Grayling’s anti-regulation agenda and it was encouraging supporters to lobby the Ministry of Justice (MoJ). If nothing else, those (mainly abroad) who fear that the LSB is too close to the government can rest easy – this is the second significant slap in the face for the LSB after the MoJ in 2011 disregarded its conclusion that the case to ban referral fees was not made out.

Was Tuesday the day we began to see the future a bit more clearly? Capital-infused alternative business structures (ABSs) with clear, market-dominating ambitions, using their financial clout to consolidate their markets? Is this the nightmare scenario for those being dragged into the ABS era? Slater & Gordon revealed it is to swallow up three practices in one go, while the Parabis Group has sated itself (for now) with ‘just’ acquiring Greenwoods. Quindell Portfolio, which has already bought three law firms itself in its well-documented acquisition frenzy, announced some big numbers in its 2012 results.

The various attempts by the Coalition government to reform the delivery of legally aided criminal defence services have encouraged the legal profession to embrace two novelties: the extensive use of social media as a form of activism and a unity of purpose. Barristers and solicitors have been blogging and tweeting extensively on the proposed legal aid cuts, the introduction of the Quality Assurance Scheme for Adovcates, and the consultation on price-competitive tendering in recent months. The online medium has been embraced not only by representative groups like the Criminal Law Solicitors Association and the Criminal Bar Association but also by individual lawyers, for commentary, analysis and active dissent.

The most expensive and valuable purchase that the majority of people make in their lifetime is their home and yet law firms compete increasingly for conveyancing work by lowering their price. Competing on price is a race to the bottom. There will always be providers wanting to undercut you, albeit that the service offered may well be inferior to your offering and standards. The difficulty is that the client cannot see your service levels from the outside unless, that is, you can find ways to show clearly your commitment to the client, spell out clearly what is involved and how you will work in their best interests at a price that is fair value. Clients need to be able to understand ‘value’.

For a long time there has been a consensus around the way that the legal market sector is changing. The pressure for change is multiple: buyers (both general counsel and consumers) are changing their behaviours, the market has been partially deregulated, the economy continues to stagnate and technology is transforming the way lawyers work. What we don’t know is what the future will look like and how will we get there. Last week we held a roundtable conversation around the question of whether, by 2025, 50% of legal work will be done by non-lawyers. Three large themes emerged from the discussion: disruptive influences, technology and legal training.