It has been a big week for the development of regulatory policy. Last Wednesday the Legal Services Board published a consultation document, asking how best to define and maintain adequate separation of the representative and regulatory arms of approved regulators. Last Thursday, Nick Smedley delivered to Lord Hunt his recommendations on the regulation of corporate legal work, which will form part of Lord Hunt’s independent investigation into the regulation of all solicitors, to be completed in the autumn.

Smedley’s report is an important and timely contribution to the debate on regulation and I am sure that Lord Hunt will find his work to be of considerable use in formulating his conclusions.

The Society has long stood at the vanguard of the drive to create a forward-looking, 21st-century profession, in part through the generation of ideas about what progressive, modern regulation should look like.

When the Law Society commissioned Lord Hunt’s independent review of solicitors’ regulation, it was aimed at developing understanding and consensus about how the regulation of solicitors can support the regulatory objectives set out in the Legal Services Act. This includes the promotion of competition, the protection of the public interest and the maintenance of the independence of the legal profession. Proportionate regulation is clearly in the public interest, because any increase in the cost of regulation will increase the cost of legal services to users.

Some have questioned the right of the Society to be canvassing opinion on this point on behalf of the profession. They have argued that it somehow impinges upon the right of the SRA to operate unhindered by the Society’s representative arm. This is a bizarre claim.

When the Legal Services Act was granted royal assent in October 2007, it was the will of parliament to retain substantial professional involvement in regulation of the legal profession. Consequently, the Law Society was named as the approved regulator under the act.

This was not simple expediency on behalf of parliament. It resolved that profession-led regulation is an essential bulwark integral to the maintenance of an independent profession. In a similar manner, the Legal Services Board is required to sit independently of government to promote transparency and emphasise its freedom from compromising outside influence.

The Society is a key agent of delivery of parliament’s vision and it remains determined to ensure that the framework established by parliament succeeds.

The Society does not interfere and has never interfered in the regulatory responsibilities delegated to the SRA. Its record on that point is impeccable. The SRA has had operational independence from the Society’s representative arm from the very beginning and will continue to do so. At the same time, the Society stands ready to provide support and assistance to the SRA in any way that it requires.

The best regulators carry out their work in partnership with the regulated community, with the positive support of practitioners. The FSA did not do this and it failed catastrophically as a consequence of having far too few people with sufficient experience or appreciation of the sector they were tasked with regulating. It is imperative that the same mistake is not made in the legal sector.

Independence is one thing. Aloofness is another.

There is no contradiction in the notion of a regulatory body operating independently of the approved regulator’s representative arm, while retaining a collaborative and respectful relationship. Such a relationship is, by necessity, grounded in the development of frequent dialogue, mutual respect and, yes, a degree of constructive criticism from time to time.

The dialogue is easy to develop but mutual respect is built through actions, not words.

It is plain to all those involved with the profession that the current operation of the regulatory system is not to everyone’s satisfaction.

We want to ensure that the SRA has an understanding of the profession that enables it to be a bold and robust regulator, anticipating and meeting the challenges of the rapidly changing economic, social and political environment. It is in nobody’s interest for the regulator to focus on what is easy to regulate or to give in to the understandable temptation to over-regulate. The high regard in which the legal profession of England and Wales (and solicitors in particular) are held depends upon the existence of a regulator acting properly, with equanimity and without favour.

The Society established the SRA at the beginning of 2007 in anticipation of the requirements of the Legal Services Act, but before the legislation was settled. The experience of the last three years or so has been extremely valuable. With the legislation now settled and the LSB in place, it is an appropriate moment to take stock of progress and lessons learned.

The profession has to take a lead by offering its perspective on the operation of the existing system and by contributing the benefit of its experience.

The co-operation and collaboration of the representative arm of the Society with the SRA is not a threat. Instead, it will result in a strong, independent regulator working with the cooperation and confidence of a forward-looking profession dedicated to serving in the public interest.

None of this impinges on the SRA’s freedom and independence. If anything, it helps to maintain it.

Paul Marsh is president of the Law Society