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.

There can’t be too many people who remain oblivious to the global coverage of the horse meat furore unfolding in the UK; the widespread clandestine and probably criminal dilution/contamination of processed beef products with up to 100% horse meat. And how is this relevant to legal services pricing? Simple, really. It doesn’t matter whether you are talking processed meat of dubious provenance or legal services: you get what you pay for.

Picture your average day. When you have a spare five minutes, whether on the train, in a taxi, or waiting for a meeting to start, what are you doing? Chances are you have your smartphone in your hand, or your tablet on your lap, and you are searching. Searching for a holiday, the contact number of a restaurant, or maybe you are doing a spot of online shopping? So what makes your clients any different to you?

It’s not like the Legal Services Board (LSB) to spring a surprise, but its announcement last week that it was not going to recommend that estate administration become a reserved legal activity – while pushing ahead with will-writing – certainly was one. My initial reaction, along with many of those reported on Legal Futures last week, was one of bafflement. Surely of the three elements of the process – will writing, probate and estate administration – it is the latter where the highest risk of fraud occurs and thus where regulation is most needed. Instead the first two will be. I understand that it was a real knife-edge decision by the LSB, and on reflection I think I agree with it.