It has taken around five years to reach the point of publishing the names of firms against whom complaints are made. A process begun by the Legal Complaints Service and then handed on, with some relief, to the Legal Ombudsman, it has caused much huffing, puffing and argument. My initial reaction was how underwhelming the information actually was (which, in fairness, Chief Ombudsman Adam Sampson had previously flagged up to me was likely to be the case). What conclusion can anyone draw about the many law firms on the list about which one complaint had reached an ombudsman decision but then no remedy ordered, meaning they had in fact dealt with the matter properly?

A common trope on this website and elsewhere is that alternative business structures and all the other changes in the legal market will hit the traditional high street law firm hard. In saying this, there is an implication that a reduction in the number of solicitors on high streets is a bad thing. This is a shaky assumption – if everything was shipshape, I don’t suppose so many non-lawyers would be eying up the market. For one thing, quantity does not equal quality – better one efficient, accessible law firm down the road than three inefficient, inaccessible practices.

The Olympics and Paralympics have inspired us all. And if, like me, you were lucky enough to have visited the Olympic Park or any of the other venues, you’ll probably know that one of the reasons that visitors have left on a high has been down to the fantastic efforts of the volunteer games-makers.

That was the third August through which Legal Futures has reported, and each time it has proven a surprisingly busy month. The last four and a half weeks have left us with plenty to ponder. First up we are finally starting to see alternative business structures approved on a regular basis; this is not great surprise now that we are eight months into the process. There was also the second discussion paper from the Legal Education and Training Review and the Law Society cancelling its annual conference.

When I’m out meeting new firms, writes John Thomas of LawNet, all too often when I ask managing partners about the cost of their PII, they do not know. Not many can tell me to the nearest £10,000 and some have no idea at all, having devolved responsibility to the ‘insurance partner’. But is this acceptable in a world of change and challenge, and constant pressure on costs?