We are entering the third phase of responses to the economic crisis. First, there was the effort to put right through new law or regulation what had gone wrong before - not very strongly or accurately, since banks are still paying bonuses and credit rating agencies still doing whatever they want. Lawyers have been caught up in some of the blind thrashing around to remedy wrongs, particularly in the bailed-out countries, even though lawyers were not part of the reasons for the crash. Second, there was the effort to cut ballooning national debts in the rounds of austerity that nearly every EU member state has faced - and here lawyers have also been implicated, for instance in cuts to legal aid or court funding. And now we come to the next, and probably final, stage: the push for growth.

There are those who argued that the third stage should have come first, and was the only sure way to exit the crisis. But human nature needs to punish and blame when things go wrong, and so we had to endure at least parts of the other phases first. The question is what growth means for lawyers.

Part of the Troika argument in the bailed-out countries (in other words, submitted on behalf of the IMF, European Central Bank and European Commission) is that restructuring of the legal profession is necessary for economic growth to return to those countries. Put bluntly like that it is difficult to take seriously. People have no problem investing in China even though its legal profession is new, in a learning phase, and considered by some not to be always free from government influence.

On the other hand, the UK, which has an economically liberal legal profession, with a longstanding international reputation, is having difficulty attracting enough investment to grow. So what has the legal profession to do with it? Such actions look more like an excuse for restructuring for ideological reasons rather than because of growth.

That is not to say that the legal system does not play an important role in long-term economic prosperity. The best study that I know on this aspect was carried out for the Danish Bar and Law Society some years ago, which found that, although classic economic theory was right that liberalisation can benefit consumers through increased competition, it was also true that liberalisation can damage consumers and society: 'It is already difficult for the clients to assess the quality of legal services. Therefore, if a liberalisation reduces the requirements for legal advisers it could affect the quality of legal services. In particular, the problem will hit private clients and small enterprises because large business clients have better opportunities for assessing the quality of the lawyer’s work and therefore less need for protection.

'Liberalisation can also have damaging consequences if it decreases the independence of the lawyers or the quality of their court work. The citizen’s access to independent lawyers is a prerequisite for ensuring access to justice and the lawyers’ work in court contributes to define "case law" to the benefit of the whole society.' I know this is a bit of ‘on the one hand, on the other’, but the conclusion is clear that authorities should bear this balance in mind when defining how lawyers can best contribute to the growth which we all see as necessary to help us emerge from the crisis.

Interestingly, the commissioner for justice, Viviane Reding, has her own campaign going, called ‘Justice for Growth’. In a recent speech, she referred to various topics in the justice field which would help the push for prosperity - none of them concerned with the regulation of lawyers. She said the EU’s Single Market was the 'most important asset and a source of growth, wealth and cohesion of our European Union', and the proposal for a Common European Sales Law (opposed by many in the UK) was key to encourage businesses to expand across borders. She then referred to the reform of the EU’s data protection rules, the reduction of administrative barriers - such as the reform of the Brussels 1 regulation - and finally her initiative to put more women into boardrooms.

Personally, I find it difficult to resist the conclusion that she looked around at her existing programmes and dressed up in economic clothes those which could halfway squeeze themselves into them. But it is rather a bedraggled collection to show on a fashion runway.

So, growth is now on the agenda, and we should face it squarely. We should agree that lawyers are a part of the necessary economic infrastructure for long-term growth, but that liberalisation of our regulation should not become an obsessional focus (see arguments about China and the Danish report above). As with other phases of the economic crisis, lawyers should not become easy targets for unnecessary tinkering.

Jonathan Goldsmith is secretary general of the Council of Bars and Law Societies of Europe, which represents about one million European lawyers through its member bars and law societies. He blogs weekly for the Gazette on European affairs