The punch-up we have witnessed over the past fortnight between the Law Society, Legal Services Board and Legal Services Consumer Panel (and by the standards of this world, a punch-up is exactly what it has been) is fascinating for regulation geeks such as myself.

Those hard-working souls at the Solicitors Regulation Authority should, without doubt, be praised for the mammoth undertaking they have achieved in producing the new Solicitors Handbook on time for consultation. Who, I wonder, will spare a thought for those who respond to the consultation?

Surprisingly, implementation of the Legal Services Act did not feature in the Coalition agreement, but we will soon get a chance to find out what the new government makes of it. As I reported yesterday, a new Cabinet committee set up to slash regulation is to scrutinise all of the impending regulation left behind by Labour, including creation of the Office for Legal Complaints and introduction of alternative business structures.

The findings of the Jures research into consumers’ enthusiasm (or not) for legal services delivered by non-legal brands has unsurprisingly received coverage and, I’m sure raised the spirits of some solicitors – and maybe encouraged a few to mutter “I told you so”. It is, of course, far too early to say that, and it strikes me that this research is good news for both sides of the fence.

If, in a post outcomes-focused regulation world, all new firms have been given a clean bill of health by their regulator, there is a case for reopening the assigned risks pool to them because there might be other, less good reasons that they have not been able to obtain insurance, particularly if they are BME firms.