What a curious week of news. We had Ed Miliband reinvent himself as electable, Obama somehow do the opposite and numerous ex-BBC staff claim to be horrified at the behaviour of an ex-colleague, despite never thinking to report it themselves. In the legal world, it was a week that on the surface had its fair share of shock moments.
The Solicitors Regulation Authority seems to have done something right, for a start, in smoothing over the insurance renewal period. Just a couple of dozen firms dropped into the dreaded assigned risks pool, which this year resembles a game on the Crystal Maze TV show, with contestants given just a year to get out or face an automatic lock-in.
The Labour conference came and went, with a refreshing honesty from the opposition when it refused to offer justice promises it wouldn’t be able to keep if the party won in 2015 (and let’s not forget, legal aid would surely have been cut if they’d hung onto power in 2010).
And this was in theory one of the biggest weeks in the legal world since the liberalisation process began. This was the moment that Saga and the AA made their intentions known and fluttered eyelashes at the legal profession. Both are sticking to what they do best – Saga is looking to write wills for their over 50s market, and the AA is likely to help with PI claims for its drivers suffering accidents (hopefully not while they’re learning with the AA driving school).
It was what we expected and what the government seems to have wanted – big-name brands showing how it should be done. So why did the arrival of these two giants feel strangely flat and subdued? Why does it feel like these high-profile companies are simply reinventing the wheel, but with a much bigger marketing budget?
Saga was so underwhelmed with news of its own arrival that it broke its own embargo. The news was supposed to be announced with a fanfare on Wednesday but the legal section was already running on its website days in advance. Its alternative business structure plans amounted to nothing more than some online documents for writing wills, a discount on legal expenses insurance and a panel of law firms to help with more complex issues.
The press release accompanying the announcement was at times patronising and laughable. A survey of over 50s found that 66% wanted letters written in ‘plain English rather than legal jargon’. You have to wonder what is wrong with the other 34%. And the claim that 60% of people want legal service providers to offer ‘more value for money’ was revealing only for the 40% who presumably want to be ripped off instead.
For the AA, details are sketchy but there is an obvious problem. Drivers with insurance with the company could well go to that same company for a personal injury claim – is there not a serious conflict of interest there? One for the ABS judges at the SRA, perhaps. I welcome new entrants to the market – there was clearly an issue with customer service that the Legal Services Act sought to remedy.
But I want more from these big-name brands. I want innovation, new ideas and something that will raise the reputation of the entire legal profession. This was supposed to be a new dawn for the legal sector, but the outlook still looks a little foggy to me.
Follow John on Twitter
No comments yet