The new year begins (as 2011 ended) with a discussion of the impact of alternative business structures (ABSs) on the profession.

At last, the Solicitors Regulation Authority is authorised to accept applications and license ABSs. It is reported that 10 firms have submitted applications so far. A modest beginning. No doubt others (both existing firms and new entrants) are developing their plans and will come forward during the year.

As discussed ABSs will become just another vehicle through which practitioners may choose to develop and provide legal services. There will continue to be sole practitioners, partnerships and LLPs. As before, the decision as to which vehicle is most appropriate will turn on a number of factors including the area of practice, nature of the client base, the size and spread of the practice, its ambitions for the future, capacity for investment and ability to provide returns on that investment to a range of stakeholders.

While some regard ABSs as anathema and unwelcome, there is no reason to judge a solicitor working within an ABS as less professional, fit or capable of discharging his/her obligations in respect of the mandatory Principles and Outcomes established by Outcomes Focused Regulation (OFR), than peers carrying on practising in any other form. Objections raised by reference to such an argument are wrong and draw an unnecessary demarcation line between professionals with a shared enthusiasm for providing legal advice and service with integrity, serving their clients' interests in a manner that the clients value.

We are now well used to talking of law firms as entities in their own right, developing their identities and brands. Some with spectacular success, others less so. Regulation of the "entity" is developing and we will soon have compliance officers for legal practice (COLPs) and compliance officers for finance and administration (COFAs) in place. Therefore it is logical that much of the current commentary speaks of the opportunities for the firm or business, frequently linked to speculation about particular named firms.

There is perhaps little consideration of the impact on the individual, other than daily offers from trainers and consultants to manage performance or manage out individuals who fall short of the mark. On the other side of that coin are the reports of transfers, team moves and lateral hires. An ongoing process as firms seek to build market share, focus on particular regions, industry sectors or service lines.

There are also moves prompted as unintended consequences of other steps taken by the practice. Individuals working at any level and in any area of a business have their own expectations, ambitions for their careers, together with opinions formed over years through training, observations and experience. Solicitors may have been working towards "partnership" as recognition of their excellence/achievement and may not understand or be keen to remain an employee, whatever the title, sharing ownership or profit with other non-legal professionals.

Other professionals working in and contributing to the success and resilience of the firm (in finance, IT, information services, business development or human resources) may be encouraged by the opportunity to take a stake in the firm, alongside, and some ahead of, their solicitor colleagues.

Some may be turned off by the prospect of working in a business whose ownership is intended to change (investors look for and plan exits) without reference to them. Others may see ABSs as appropriate to a particular type or way of working. If not currently associated with that part of the practice, they may feel a lack of support and personal opportunity. They may also feel a lack of loyalty to the practice. As an employment lawyer, I have advised a number of professionals (accountants, surveyors, engineers as well as solicitors), who have felt their loyalty to their current employer/firm weakened by the effects of recession - salary cuts, lack of promotion, redundancies, discrete exits, increased pressure all take their toll, increase scepticism and make them more inclined to move rather than bear with it.

In short, advancing the business of the firm to make the most of the real opportunities arising from changes in regulation and the permission of ABSs, will risk the loss of clients (some of whom may object to a change in the ownership of the firm they instructed) and, more relevant to this article, people.

This emphasises business risks, many of which are familiar to practitioners, the loss of good people, with relevant expertise, strong client relationships and knowledge of the way in which the firm operates. Increasingly this risk may also attach to the loss of management knowledge and expertise. How will we respond to the risk of the loss of a COFA, COLP, director of IT or business development?

Our Principles (Biblical/SRA Handbook reference - Principle 8, Chapter 7) require us to manage our business effectively with proper risk management systems.

Effective explanation internally of what the firm/business is doing (by act or default) remains vital. Most firms have highly developed and effective lines of communication (a two-way process) within and across their practices.

The current environment provides an excellent opportunity to consider who is looking on (clients and our people) and focus on those delivering services to the clients, explaining why the firm is taking a particular course and ensuring that they continue to feel they have a stake in its continued progress.

Nothing new under the sun. Change provides opportunity, but is also unsettling.

Robert Bourns is senior partner at national law firm TLT