In a decade not just the name but the traditional life of a solicitor may have vanished. In its place, lawyers and para- legals will share one-stop shops: they will set up with accountants or bankers in multiprofessional practices. Or they will sit in booths in supermarkets and chainstores, giving legal advice to people as they shop.

And as lawyers move into the marketplace, the market will move into law. Banks, building societies and others will give legal advice to their clients, handling probate and estates.

Janet Paraskeva, who for three years has been chief executive of the Law Society, sees the proposals as a challenge. ìThe profession ó and the society ó is facing what could be a very exciting time. We are looking at a revolution in legal services, and from the perspective of all the professions, not just solicitors, and what it means for lawyers in this country, with the global markets City lawyers service and for the future of the high street and publicly funded work. It is about new ways of delivering access to justice.î

Fresh ways of providing legal services to the public are one thing; regulating those services is another. In July the Lord Chancellor announced a review by David Clementi, chairman of the Prudential, while predicting that the Law Society was likely to lose its right to selfregulation. It is something that solicitors will fight. ìWhat is important is the professionís independence, and part of that is self-regulation,î Paraskeva says. ìThat has to be its mainstay . . . itís non-negotiable.î

The profession is already multifaceted. It covers all kinds of legal work and law practices that are poles apart in earnings, working styles and laws applied. But, Paraskeva argues, the common thread is the ethics, standards and professional rules they work to: they are all solicitors. The Law Society, as regulator, enforces the rules.

It also, though, has the job of ensuring that consumers ó the public ó obtain proper and speedy redress if dissatisfied. On this second limb the society has faced increasing criticism. Despite measures costing £21 million and a period of respite when the backlog was cut, complaints are rising again. Last week the society announced a move to stem the tide, a new complaints directorate to deal only with the public and not with the enforcement of rules. The focus, Paraskeva says, will be on customer care and speedy handling of complaints of shoddy work. ìWe are putting the consumer first. Itís a statement by the profession that recognises the importance of handling complaints.î

The Lord Chancellor has been looking at whether to invoke powers that he has to appoint a new complaints commissioner as an overarching complaints regulator that can impose fines. Will the societyís new complaints body stave off this move? That is not its intention, Paraskeva says. ìIt is to ensure that we handle complaints better.î But she opposes what she says would be just ìanother layer of bureaucracy and costî.

The societyís record on complaints has made solicitors vulnerable over regulation. But if they have their backs against the wall on regulation, they are leading the charge over what is dubbed Tesco Law. Big City firms want to be able to set up with accountants, and many would not opppose being allowed to provide services for the public while being employed by supermarkets or Marks & Spencer. ìIf a way can be found to regulate it, people realise that there are real commercial benefits and opportunities for them in opening up the market ó though some worry about the impact of competition on the high street,î Paraskeva says.

Richard Miller, chairman of the Legal Aid Practitionersí Group, fears that that competition could kill the small firm and access to legal services. ìLegal aid work in many firms is cross-subsidised,î he says. ìIf prices come down because of competition, many firms wonít be able to subsidise legal aid work. Itís like the high street greengrocer or chemist ó many have been forced to close.

ìIf the Government is committed to a network of publicly funded legal services, it has to address that problem. We will have to look at other models, at GP practices ó salaried services. But the Clementi review is going to have a major impact.î

Meanwhile, with legal aid rates squeezed, access to legal services is already threatened. Middle-income litigants face a similar problem. Richard Fox, immediate past chairman of the London Solicitorsí Litigation Association, says that ìno win, no feeî deals have not proved to be the promised panacea. ìIt is very hard to get the funding to run claims and insurance premiums can be substantial. And at the end of it, thereís all the argument over costs. So theyíve not worked in widening access to justice as we hoped.î

A radical review is needed, he says, which could see ìno win, no feeî work replaced by US-style contingency fees, where lawyers are paid with a slice of the damages.

Paraskeva does not believe that the reforms mean the death of the high street solicitor, rather a wider choice so that the public can choose the kind of lawyer they want. ìItís a real opportunity for the profession to reshape itself, building on its strengths,î she says. In her three years, competition has had the biggest impact. ìSolicitors have realised that they must look at delivering services in a competitive way, and they are now ready to embrace that.î

Changes in store