Reading through the Legal Services Board’s draft business plan for 2011/12, I was stuck by the glowing vision it presented of the post-alternative business structure world.

It seemed to me to be the type of gushing enthusiasm that you would expect from the government department that had masterminded the reforms, rather than the independent regulator charged with implementing them.

Presenting ABSs as something of a panacea, it said:

‘ABS is potentially one of the most transformative developments in the history of legal services provision. It will bring new investment, fresh ideas and new ways of working to the market.

‘A well-regulated dynamic market for legal services will deliver across the regulatory objectives. By removing historical restrictions - whilst replacing them with robust risk-assessment measures focused on outcomes - practitioners will be able to innovate and reshape their offer in ways that were previously not possible.

‘New forms of collaboration and new entrants into the market will increase consumer choice, whilst greater competition will raise standards.

‘Existing law firms will be able to attract new capital – providing a driver for sustainability and growth in difficult economic times.

‘This programme will also contribute to a greater degree of plurality in the market, bringing new working practices and career pathways.

‘New entrants with original approaches to development, virtual law firms and greater numbers of telephone and web-based advisory services with greater varieties of pricing structures are just some examples.

‘Challenging old orthodoxies will be a major feature of the more dynamic and diverse marketplace – having an impact on areas such as workforce diversity, where the unreformed market had difficulty with the pace of change in other sectors.’

It was this next bit about ‘access to justice’ that particularly concerned me:

‘Opening up the market can also have a major impact on widening access to justice at a critical time.

‘Increased levels of supply from new entrants, alongside greater innovation in the way services are packaged and delivered, will create competitive forces that lower prices and widen access.

‘In the current economic climate, and in the context of new pressures on legal aid, this has the potential to have a major impact – particularly for those consumers who, whilst better-off than the threshold for public support, still struggle to afford to engage good-quality legal advice.

‘Competition is more likely to extend the reach of provision in these areas than current restrictive practices will allow.’

So new entrants to the market are going to help to alleviate the affect of legal aid cuts? To me, that assertion indicates a worrying lack of understanding from the regulator charged with implementation of the reforms.

True, new entrants may well bring down the cost of legal services in the areas where they believe they can turn a decent profit (wills, personal injury, conveyancing), but these are not fields that are covered by legal aid.

I would like to know which of the areas affected by legal aid cuts the LSB thinks the new entrants are going to be serving.

Debt advice? Not exactly a money spinner when the client can’t afford to pay. Complex clinical negligence claims? Not quite as appealing as commoditised bulk road traffic accidents work.

Then there is private law family work, which has been removed from the scope of legal aid unless there’s evidence of domestic violence.

Most commentators believe that the big brands, which have a whole range of services to sell to consumers, will not want to enter a field of work where one client may be satisfied, but the other party is likely to feel pretty negatively about the brand that acted for their ex-wife or husband.

And what about private law contact work; acting for parents (often, though not always, fathers) seeking contact with their children, which has been withdrawn by the other parent.

That the government is making cuts which will mean working class fathers and their children will be denied access to one another, at a time when, to quote the Prime Minister, we have a ‘broken society’ caused by ‘family breakdown’, is a disgrace.

Will new market entrants ride in to provide legal representation in this sensitive and emotive area? They won’t touch it with a barge pole.

ABSs may well bring many of the benefits that the LSB has predicted. But it is foolhardy to pretend that they will cure all problems in the legal services market.

Effective regulation of the new legal landscape is going to require a more intelligent analysis from the LSB.