Just as with the Second World War, so the current economic crisis - which Chancellor Merkel says is Europe’s most challenging period since the war - had its phoney period, which has now ended. For a long while, nothing seemed to happen, and no consequences were felt. But, from a lawyer’s point of view, that is no longer the case.

I shall start with Italy, which is not even a bailed-out country. The press reported on the huge pressure on Silvio Berlusconi before he resigned. He insisted on seeing through a package of reforms first, and this was passed on his last day in office. According to a press report in the UK, the measures were opposed by the Italian legal profession: 'Italian lawyers are already on war-footing over moves to include measures in the package to open up the legal profession to greater competition. La Stampa points out that around 150 lawyers sitting in parliament were instructed by their professional association to vote down similar measures when they were proposed by the government this summer.'

Included in the stability law approved on Berlusconi’s last day by the Italian parliament - at the urging of the European institutions - were alternative business structures, just as known and beloved in the UK. In summary, the new rules include the following:

(i) any kind of corporate structure is permitted for law firms (including limited companies and stock corporations); (ii) the exclusive purpose must be the exercise of professional activities (including any multi-disciplinary partnerships); (iii) the partners/shareholders may be (a) professionals admitted to the relevant professional organizations, (b) citizens of other European Union member states with the requisite professional qualifications, or (c) non-professionals for a list of technical services or investment purposes.

Outside ownership is therefore now permitted, including apparently in a majority position. This is interesting in view of the so-far rather isolated position of the UK on this question.

VAT on legal services is another issue which has changed with the real war. There used to be two member states where lawyers’ services were either zero-rated or exempt: Greece and Belgium. A rate of 23% on legal services in Greece was introduced soon after the country fell into economic trouble, and I understand that discussions are under way now in Belgium - again, not a bailed-out country - about the introduction of VAT on legal services, since the government needs all possible revenue streams. The CCBE used to mount an argument that VAT on legal services was an obstruction to access to justice, but that is going to be nearly impossible to argue in the current climate.

The Troika (IMF, EU and European Central Bank) instructs what changes should take place in the bailed-out countries. Its plans for the legal professions can be read on the IMF website under Greece, Ireland and Portugal (for Greece, there is more than one report). They share in general the same objectives - opening up the profession to competition, reviewing or abolishing reserved activities and other mechanisms which are seen by the Troika as keeping the profession closed.

The most radical measure proposed so far comes from Ireland through the Legal Services Regulation Bill, which would introduce more or less direct regulation by the government (I have written about it before). There are questions in Ireland as to whether this is a Troika measure, or something brought in by the justice minister under the camouflage of the Troika - indeed, it is not always clear elsewhere, too, which are real and which camouflage measures. For instance, in Portugal, the crisis has brought about a change relating to legal aid lawyers which does not appear in the Troika shopping list. Up until now, the Bar appointed legal aid lawyers, who were paid by the government in accordance with a list of fees. Under new proposals, the government will pay these lawyers a monthly fixed amount as employees.

The conclusion is obvious. Changes which would have been discussed and negotiated at European and national level, and which are often highly controversial, are being introduced at speed and with little chance of argument under the guise of the economic crisis. The effects of the real crisis are now upon us.