One precept remains stubbornly unaltered as the western economies struggle. It is the assumption by the European Commission, the IMF and the European Central Bank (the ‘Troika’) that liberalising markets, by removing ‘barriers to entry’ and encouraging free market competition, inevitably equates to worthwhile gains for consumers.

The Troika has used the eurozone crisis to force reform of the legal market at a speed that is breathtaking. In Ireland, market liberalisation is to sit side by side with, in effect, direct regulation by the government. In Italy, the introduction of ABSs and outside ownership were among the final package of reforms pushed through by Berlusconi. The IMF has similar plans for Portugal.

There are arguments for and against such liberalisation. But economic crises have allowed decisions to be taken for these jurisdictions at such speed that the voices of clients and professionals have not been heard. Perhaps as a consequence, ‘freeing up the market’ seems to be accompanied in each case with that odd bedfellow, more direct government control of professionals - especially professionals whose clients’ interests may not align with those of government.

Fully liberalised, lightly regulated markets, whose accountability was ‘patchy’ at best, had a leading role in creating the conditions for economic crisis. It seems odd to demand a bigger role for them now in the legal sector.