JON ROBINS REPORTS HOW THE BREAKAWAY CITY LEGAL PRACTICE COURSR WILL AFFECT THE COLLEGE OF LAW AND LEGAL EDUCATIONWhen it was announced last month that an alliance of eight of the largest commercial firms was to launch its own breakaway City legal practice course (LPC), it seemed a double whammy for the College of Law.

Not only will the college lose more than 200 students, many destined for careers in the so-called magic circle of top firms, but some see it as the beginning of the end for its 'one-size-fits-all' approach to legal education.In the same week, the College of Law hit back with its own 'corporate vision' for a revamped LPC.

Students would be able to 'bolt together' a corporate version of the business law and practice course with a wide choice of electives to match the requirements of their choice of practice.The college was eager to stress that it would not be 'deflected' from its strategy of serving the needs of 'all parts of a diversified profession'.

Nor did it anticipate losing students.

In fact, the course could become more popular than ever, it argued, as many would not join a 'hot house' City course.Backing the City LPC is an impressive coalition, comprising Slaughter and May, Linklaters & Alliance , Clifford Chance, Allen & Overy, Freshfields, Herbert Smith, Lovells and Norton Rose.

In total, they spend £10 million a year putting 700 of their bright young things through the LPC, and they are not happy with the results.Slaughter and May partner Melvyn Hughes says the firm's trainees have been consistently giving the LPC a bad write-up since its inception seven years ago.

He believes it is widely perceived as 'a year of coasting'.

He adds: 'We've had more and more people complaining, and the complaints have become more and more vociferous.'From the Law Society's point of view, there is no problem with this collaboration between educational provider and private practice.

According to Roger Smith, director of training, the Society must ensure that the designation of 'solicitor' remains a general qualification meaning the same thing across the board.

But within the regulatory blueprint, the Society is 'happy to recognise' that there are different types of practice and lawyers with different training needs.He says there are concerns with new course over accessibility and ensuring the qualification remains a 'common standard' but, nonetheless, he is satisfied that the City can get what it wants within existing regulations.Mr Hughes also maintains that the overhaul is possible within the regulatory framework.

He says that the new course -- to be launched next year through Nottingham Law School, BPP Law School, and the Oxford Institute -- will mark a return to black letter law.

It will be 'more intellectually challenging, more demanding and rigorous', he says.

'[Trainees] need to be much better prepared to understand the deals we do and the law that underpins them,' he points out.

'And we don't think that is an unreasonable thing to ask'.Competition in the financial markets has never been so intense and UK firms are now fighting over the same patch with both US and continental firms.

For English law to remain pre-eminent, he insists, the profession needs lawyers of the right calibre and that is an issue that goes back to training.Some argue that more fundamental reform is needed.

Professor Peter Jones, the dean of Nottingham Law School, calls on the Society to loosen its grip on the course.

For example, students heading towards corporate practice are still required to study probate, whilst those heading for the high street must spend 50% of their compulsory course studying business law.

Such prescription has little place in an increasingly diverse legal profession, he believes.

He says the 70% core of the LPC common to all students should be reduced to 50%.

He is also opposed to the College of Law's two-track approach, which he says will lead to a split in training which will have a 'ripple effect on the whole of the profession'.Paul Rylance, associate dean of the University of West England in Bristol, says he would be keen for initiatives to allow providers to have greater flexibility to prepare student for all parts of the profession, including cutting down the core to 50%.Professor Nigel Savage, chief executive of the College of Law, recognises that there is disquiet over the LPC but he maintains that the issue of education is bigger than the interests of one sector of the profession.

He is opposed to cutting down the compulsory core on the grounds that it would 'erode the foundations' of the course.

'You're presenting students with too many choices too soon.'His argument with the City coalition is that the drive for early specialisation will widen a growing skills gap between trainees and 'fully functioning' cor porate lawyers or litigators.

The problem with some City firms is that they do not do the sort of work that enables young solicitors to develop general foundations for their skills as lawyers, he says.Melvyn Hughes rejects the charge.

The new course is not about specialisation.

That is the 'great myth' about their course, he says.

One of the problems with the existing LPC is that it is 'too narrow'.

As a provider, Professor Savage says the college has a responsibility to serve the needs of the whole profession and create young lawyers with a commitment to a wider community.

But he is not simply opposed to specialisation on principle; there are practical objections too.

'Today's specialist derivative lawyers were yesterday's good commercial lawyers.

You become a good commercial lawyer by understanding the threads of a subject and what brings it together.

And not by specialising immediately in one area.'The LPC has been 'mucked around with' so much since 1993 that it is beginning to lose its rationale, he says.

Prof Savage says well-designed courses are like good buildings -- they both need good architects.

'We need to look again at the design and concept of the LPC because it is not serving the function it was meant to,' he says.

But the answer is not to let the customers do the redesign.

'You take into account what the customers want, but there comes a point when you have to say "I'm the architect".'There was little surprise at last month's announcement as the course had been the subject of press speculation for a few months.

Indeed, in 1997, the Gazette revealed that Allen & Overy was considering setting up its own LPC (see [1997] Gazette, 30 April, 1).

An anonymous author in The Times' law pages recently argued that the impasse between the eight firms and the College of Law was more about personalities than principles.

The bottom line was the City did not like Prof Savage.

The writer was backed by a source claiming that the split was down to his 'up-front -- if abrasive -- personality'.

Prof Savage chooses not to respond to the attack, adding that the college's position is clear.

'We have a commitment to the whole profession.

Everyone should have the right to become a lawyer.'Edward Smethurst, chairman of the Law Society's Commerce and Industry Group, says that from an in-house perspective, Professor Savage has gone about reforming the LPC 'with some gusto'.

The group and the College of Law are currently working on an in-house elective.

He questions whether the City firms could have overhauled the course 'from within'.There is alarm from a number of quarters at the development.

Robert Short left the police force to study law at the College of Law's Store Street branch in London.

He has articles with City firm Nabarro Nathanson and says being branded a City lawyer too early is a mistake.

The trainee who is not given a contract at the end of his articles is 'cast adrift', he says; fully trained-up for a career in the City, but without a job.

He contends that the existing course meets his needs and tersely rejects the notion that the course is 'intellectually' an easy ride.

'Maybe they are trying to create an elite,' he suggests.Theeba Ragunathan, vice-chairwoman of the Trainee Solicitors Group, says the group has yet to see the detail of the course, but there is a real danger of it becoming 'an elite within an elite'.Peter Herbert, chairman of the Society of Black Lawyers, has a more specific charge.

'The LPC has increasingly reflected the demands of the City firms rather than the need for lawyers to be trained in the all-round discipline of solicitors,' he says.The new course is a 'fast track' to identify 'City-firm types', he reckons, but adds that such a perception excludes lawyers from ethnic minorities.

He is also disappointed at the course providers.

'They have a responsibility to confront what they believe is likely to lead to exclusion.'One trainee working in a City firm outside the new alliance says the new development could lead to trainees like himself being perceived as 'someone lesser' than their peers on the City course.

But he also recognises that there are 'legitimate concerns' from the City about the failings of the LPC.

Then again, the lack of commercial focus was less of an issue than crowded classes.

There were up to 50 people in his classes.The fine details of the new courses from the College of Law and the City coalition are still under wraps, and it remains to be seen whether either can please all interested parties -- students, firms and an increasingly diversified profession.TOM BLASS EXAMINES LONDON'S APPEAL FOR MANY REGIONAL PLAYERS AND WHETHER IT LIVES UP TO ALL THE HYPELondon is many different things to many different law firms.

For a number of regional firms, the charms of London are increasingly apparent.

Last year saw northern heavyweight Addleshaw Booth hang a shingle in the City; in the past month, leading East Anglian commercial practice Mills & Reeve bowed to client pressure and a shift in market focus by also opening up shop.Dibb Lupton Alsop has demonstrated its commitment to becoming a City player, consolidating its four London offices with spanking new premises.

Even those regional powerhouses that treat the 'paved with gold' myth with healthy scepticism concede that London has its temptations.

But there is equally healthy disagreement as to how a London practice is best capitalised on -- or whether it's even worth the bother.Eversheds, which originally sprung from Birmingham, is always looked upon as representing one end of the spectrum of 'national' or regional firms.

Eversheds is remarkable not for the global reach of its offices, which is modest by the standards of the international players, but because it combines global reach with a UK presence that extends beyond London.

It is only five years since Eversheds merged with Jaques & Lewis (and since then absorbed the bulk of the erstwhile Frere Cholmeley Bischoff).

Eversheds' London office fields a total complement of more than 530 people.

Few deny the practice the accolade it seeks of being called a City firm.

National chairman Keith James admits that London has become the 'flagship' office, and that its continuing success will play a critical role in the future of the firm, both in the UK and abroad.Eversheds is not the only historically regional player to crack or attempt to crack the mould of its provincial origins.

Dibb Lupton Alsop has made plain its intention to head for the top of the ladder.

London office managing partner Paul Nichols insists that Dibbs is best described as 'a City firm, dominant in the regions -- with the ambition of being the leading integrated law firm in Europe'.

Mr Nichols says the London office accounts for more than half of the firm's total turnover (it also has offices in Birmingham, Liverpool, Leeds, Manchester, Sheffield, Hong Kong and Brussels).

This week it consolidates its four London offices into one in the heart of the City.Mr Nichols admits that one template for the firm's coverage is that of the big accountancy firms: 'You've got to be where your client needs you, and no more than one and a half hours from any area of significant regional activity.' He adds: 'It means we can service our clients with headquarters in the regions and London subsidiaries -- and also attract London-based clients with regional subsidiaries.' Mr Nichols says that in the absence of a London office, 'it isn't possible to get into the top border of work'.

Partly, he says, it is the ability to make connections with City-based institutions that makes the difference -- not just having a pied-a-terre presence for its own sake.

The Dibbs London practice has some characteristics absent in the rest of the network, a more developed banking practice being one.But Mr Nichols thinks that coming from a regional practice offers some advantages to clients: 'We have higher standards of client service coming from the regions.

And that's what it's about.'One of the most recent big regional entrants to the City is the Manchester and Leeds-based firm Addleshaw Booth & Co.

'We came to London really for two reasons,' says London partner Simon Twigden.

'Partly, because it enabled us to better service existing clients such as Sainsbury's and 3i.

And partly because it fitted in with our overall business plan.' The firm currently has more than 30 people in London, and aims to be more than 60-strong by the end of the year.

'We've built up through a balanced mix of lateral hires and secondments from the north.

We're anxious not to build a "firm-within-a-firm".

' Mr Twigden can boast that the firm's regional background has not prevented it from successfully hiring from a number of City firms, including Slaughter and May, Clifford Chance and Paisner & Co.At present, Addleshaws is focusing on building up its corporate finance, property, banking and litigation strengths.

Mr Twigden stresses that the move was originally client-driven, and that existing clients remain, for the moment, the raison d'etre of its London practice.

Nonetheless, he adds, 'there's no reason for us not to pick up clients from London'.John Stapleton is the managing partner of Thomas Adams Church Eggar, a commercial practice which has come to London from its base in Surrey and Sussex.

'We're something of a queer fish,' he says.

'We see ourselves as needing to have a presence in London not because it is the national capital so much as because it's the south-east regional capital.

There's also a client perception [gained by having a London office] that you're bigger than you actually are.'The firm has had a financial services business for more than 20 years, based in London, and Mr Stapleton says this generates a significant volume of work for the London practice.

At the moment, the office acts for clients, including Railtrack and Link in the niche areas of institutional debt collection and financial services.

And while it strives to broaden its client portfolio, it will not seek to increase its number of practice areas.

Currently, the London office is not insubstantial: it has 60 fee-earners, and boasts four equity and four salaried partners.Mills & Reeve partner Nigel Cusack admits that the decision to move into London wasn't easy to make: 'We thought long and hard before setting up here.' Mills & Reeve made the move for very specific reasons.

The firm is on the Solicitors Indemnity Fund panel, and, says Mr Cusack, with the disbandment of the fund, 'we perceived a need to be closer to London'.

Other clients include Imperial College and the NHS Litigation Authority.

The firm is really in London, says Mr Cusack, 'to deepen relationships with existing clients'.

But while he says the firm will be looki ng at cross-selling opportunities and 'meeting new people', to have a credible full service firm in London is 'very expensive.

We're going to be sufficiently cautious'.While smaller firms are seeing the attractions of the big city, there are still regional players that have refrained from the move south.

Exemplary of this creed are the Birmingham-based Wragge & Co and Leeds firm Walker Morris, both of which make a point of practising from a single office, but maintain a nationwide and international reputation that belies their geographical spread.

Wragge & Co's senior partner, Quentin Poole, explains: 'There was a perception seven or eight years ago that City firms could cover the whole country from London, but that the regional firms had to open offices in every city.

We didn't see why we couldn't work from a single regional office.'Mr Poole says 70% of the firm's work now comes from outside London, and believes that it has been singularly successful in attracting 'London-type clients' -- including British Airways, Tomkins, Heinz and McDonald's.

Mr Poole identifies some of the perceived pitfalls of moving to the capital: 'There can be hideous problems -- people squabbling over work or their "patch".

It can put a lot of strain on the partnership.' He notes, though, that if the firm is involved in a major transaction 'and everything is based in London' -- such as lawyers, bankers and public relations people -- there is sense in maintaining a facility in London that includes meeting rooms, secretaries, and IT support.

Also, he adds, a London presence is useful from a marketing perspective, particularly for US clients who believe that the UK centres on London.

Mr Poole concedes that if Wragges is to become a top five firm in some niche areas, as it intends to, the firm might shore up its London presence as an extension of those practice areas.Walker Morris is an institution in Leeds.

But despite its success in one of the north's most significant cities, the firm has desisted from broadening its presence.

Philip Mudd, the firm's managing partner, is almost used to being treated as the odd one out in the Leeds market-place, competing on the same terms with firms anxious to plant their flags Yorkshire-wide, nation-wide, and in some cases Europe-wide.

But Mr Mudd insists: 'If anything, our attitude has strengthened over the last few months.

We're seeing more clients from further afield than ever.' He adds that what Walker Morris has done is not unlike the traditional strategy of City firms: to offer one strong resource in one place.'We could have said, "We've got a good practice in Leeds, let's replicate it in Manchester or Birmingham".

But our approach has been to extend our reach in a different way.' He admits that there is a common perception among US and European clients that the UK is synonymous with the capital, but remains to be convinced that he has to be there: 'I think it's better to explain to them how the ground really lies.'JEREMY FLEMING EXPLORES HOW MEDIUM-SIZED FIRMS ARE SNARING BIG-TICKET WORK IN THE WAKE OF MERGER FRENZYBeing in the middle can often be precarious.

For mid-sized City law firms, not large enough to be big, but too large to be niche, this is undoubtedy true.Five years ago, the big issue facing these firms was merger.

Globalisation of legal services was the buzzword and several firms -- such as Cameron Markby Hewitt and McKenna & Co -- married and moved up the table.

For those left the issue of merger never went away.

While medium-sized may have meant 30 partners a few years ago, it's now as many as 60 or 70 partners.But the air seems to have partially cleared.

Round one is now over, and as law firms survey the new landscape other issues are beginning to assert themselves over the preoccupation with size.The most obvious of these is the size of clients.

If law firms have been busy merging, so too have their clients, especially in the blue chip market crucial to the success of the more ambitious medium-sized firms.

Those lawyers are now worried that larger clients want larger legal advisers with greater international scope.Giles Ruben, an analyst at law firm management consultancy Hidebrandt, says some firms can unquestionably still compete with the so-called magic circle of top firms 'but not across the board'.

In order to compete effectively they need to know, he explains, exactly where they can compete.

'If you look at those firms which are identifiable successes in the medium-sized market, you will see that their common feature is their focus on specific practice areas.' The worry is that firms which have always offered a 'jack of all trades, master of none' style service are under major threat.

They are neither large enough to win the big-ticket work, nor specialised enough to win niche work.So perhaps successful medium-sized firms are just a collection of connecting boutique practices.

Macfarlanes, which has 54 partners, is held out as one of the leading firms of its size, with profits per partner (£470,000) many much larger firms would steal for.

No wonder it has an unparalleled reputation for retaining partners.

Charles Martin, a corporate partner and chairman of Macfarlanes' business development committee, disagrees with the term 'boutique'.

The expression implies top players working in barrister-like isolation, whereas Mr Martin says Macfarlanes fosters a cohesive approach that traditional boutique practices fail to offer.As an example, he cites the dual reputations of the firm's corporate and private client departments -- practice areas not widely thought to flourish hand in hand.

Mr Martin points out that some of the higher-profile work done in Macfarlanes' corporate department has resulted from cross-fertilisation from the private client department.

Richard Branson being a private client led to Macfarlanes acting for Virgin Group in relation to Singapore Airlines' investment.Is Macfarlanes worried about losing business in a globalised client base? No, Mr Martin replies.

'Multinational companies have diverse layers of legal work requirements.

They have good general counsel who are well informed about the legal market.

They seek out the best firms to deal with specific work because that is their job.'Alasdair Douglas, managing partner of 44-partner Travers Smith Braithwaite (where profits per partner are £200,000), pointed out that globalisation has its flip side too.

'The larger companies become, the less appropriate it can be in some circumstance for all their legal work to be handled by one group of advisers; there may be conflicts of interest, for example.'Travers Smith has an office in Paris, but it does not practise French law; the office acts as a liaison between the London firm and French practitioners appointed to deal with the European aspects of larger deals.

'We find that many clients prefer the quality and service of local firms, rather than a local branch office of an international firm,' Mr Douglas says.

Travers Smith is currently dealing with four international deals, where it is involved with consortia of between eight and ten foreign law firms.Jonathan Goldstein, chief executive of 43-partner media and IT specialist firm Olswang (where profits per partner are £371,000), says there is a distinction to draw between firms acting for international clients, and firms acting for international clients internationally.

He says: 'For firms like us, with clients who have international commercial interests, two factors combine to secure our position: first, the electronic age has simplified access, allowing us to provide advice from a distance; second, in our experience clients prefer to use "best of breed" lawyers in each particular jurisdiction, who focus on particular areas and continue to have an edge notwithstanding globalisation.'Mr Martin admits that inevitably there will be work the nature of which is unsuited to a London-based practice.

But he says that multinationals often adopt an a la carte approach to their larger international transactions, picking firms in each jurisdiction which they now they can depend on.Five years ago, Macfarlanes and Travers Smith Braithwaite were considered 'traditional' corporate lawyers which 'punched above their weight'.

These epithets may still stand, but there is now more competition as firms such as Olswang have surged up the league tables, exploiting specialism in the burgeoning IT and media markets, taking on more staff as they go.Are firms such as Macfarlanes concerned that these new market areas will dominate in the future? 'We already have a strong e-commerce ethos, and our media department has grown organically,' says Charles Martin.

'We can build on these things, but I do not anticipate that we are destined to be as focused on those areas as, says Olswang.'Mr Douglas points out that although Travers Smith is not identified as an IT firm, it acts for some big players -- such as London Bridge Software, NTL and Premium TV -- but he does not think that the firm will seek to identify itself as an IT specialist, but rather as a corporate firm doing heavyweight IT work.

Olswang has expanded beyond its traditional IT/media practice areas, recently welcoming partners from Berwin Leighton and US firm Dewey Ballantine into its private equity department.

Mr Goldstein says Olswang takes strategy seriously, taking opinions from all staff on future opportunities, but he is clear about his vision of the firm in five years' time as 'the strategic firm of choice in media communications and e-commerce'.Mr Douglas says Travers Smith takes an independent approach and does not consider merger as part of a long-term strategy.

'We would like to see ourselves as the law firm of choice for those companies who choose not to use the magic circle,' he says.It seems that, without fixing any specific agenda for the future, these firms are clear that their advantages lie in specialisation and exploiting their niche reputations.Mr Martin says Macfarlanes sees itself working increasingly for multinationals, and expanding, but only 'in response to clients needs'.

He adds: 'It is important to understand that we do not need large quantities of work to keep busy.

We can afford to be selective about what we do.

Unlike some of the bigger firms, we can afford to leave work on the table.'And as for rivalry between the firms, he says: 'It's a good thing that firms like Olswang have joined the quality medium-sized firms on the scene.

It validates the fact that there is a place for mid-sized firms to act very effectively in the market.

We think that the existence of such firms is a healthy thing for the medium-sized sector.' That is, of course, 'so long as there aren't too many of them'.THE CI TY'S RELATIONSHIP WITH THE LAW SOCIETY IS UNDER CLOSE SCRUTINY, JESSICA SMERIN FINDSMajor City law firms have long been used to flexing their muscles when it comes to challenging for work on a domestic and international stage.

But in the past year, they have also turned their attention to challenging the regulatory structure they work in.A coalition of firms -- under the banner of the November Meeting Group -- was at the forefront of the ultimately successfully campaign to end the mutual indemnity insurance scheme.

They insisted that they were not prepared to pay premiums which covered the cost of high street failings.

And last month eight leading firms announced the launch of a City legal practice course, citing years of dissatisfaction with the content of the existing course, for which City firms pay their prospective trainees' fees.Much has been said about the relevance of the regulatory body, the Law Society, to the City firms.

Law Society President Robert Sayer understands the resentment that many City firms feel about their forced association with Chancery Lane: 'City firms provide 20% of our total income.

Any other organisation which had 20% of its clients from one source would look after them.

But the Law Society has lost sight of putting its members first.

If we had any common sense, we would have a team of people working with City firms on a regular basis to find out what they want from us, instead of guessing.

We are currently looking for ways to help City firms but we do nowhere near enough, there's still a long way to go.'There is a perception in the City that the Law Society is an inefficient and costly regulator.

Martin Gower, the senior partner of Lawrence Graham -- a member of the November Meeting Group -- voices a common City view of the governing body's Council when he says: 'I would have grave concerns at allowing any of my partners to spend large chunks of their time on Law Society matters.

To some extent, there's truth in the saying that politicians who get to the top are those who do not have the qualifications to detain them at the bottom.'However, while being critical of some of the Society's regulatory functions, Mr Gower says that much of its representational work on behalf of the City is beneficial.

A member of the Law Society's revenue law committee for several years, Mr Gower describes the work of this and the Law Society's company law committee in providing input to forthcoming legislation as 'very valuable'.It is true that many of the services which the Law Society devotes considerable time and resources to providing -- office facilities for provincial solicitors who have travelled to the High Court, advice on ethical issues, checklists on how to spot a money launderer -- have little or no application to rich firms with powerful information resources.

However, the Law Society's company and revenue law committees are highly respected in the City.

A large proportion of their membership is drawn from the City, and there is overlap between their membership and that of the City of London Law Society's corresponding committees.

There is close liaison between the societies.

When working on the Finance Bill, for example, the revenue law committees of the national and local law societies divide the work between them rather than duplicating it.On some issues, such as limited liability partnerships, the City of London Law Society has taken the decision to lobby separately from the main Law Society, believing that two voices on an important issue speak louder than one.

David McIntosh, one of the Law S ociety Council members for the City and a member of the City of London Law Society, says: 'It's very important that a strong body like the City of London Law Society lobbies on its own behalf, just as professional associations like the Forum of Insurance Lawyers lobby on the same issues as the Law Society.

However, it's also important that the Law Society as a whole lobbies, with the weight of the entire profession behind it.'Mr McIntosh suggests that a voice for all solicitors is often more persuasive than a sectional voice.

'At a time when City solicitors are being portrayed as fat cats, it's very useful to be able to point to the fact that we belong to a diverse profession in which many people are doing badly paid work of great social importance on behalf of the deprived,' he says.

'City solicitors are well equipped to look after themselves to a degree, and resent being nannied.

They may feel that on some issues their own voices carry more weight than that of the Law Society with particular organisations.

However, none of them has the weight across the whole spectrum of regulation and representation which the Law Society has.'City firms often need the Law Society's support and advice on international issues, especially when it comes to lobbying over rights to practise in a certain country.

The head of the Law Society's international directorate, Jonathan Goldsmith, says City firms are often surprised when they see how much authority the Law Society commands in the international arena.

He explains: 'Bar associations are virtually an arm of government in some countries.

We went over to Korea, one of the countries which City firms would like to open offices in, with partners from the Hong Kong offices of Allen & Overy and Freshfields.

The Koreans were thinking of using the Japanese model in order to liberalise their market, but we suggested the less restrictive Hong Kong or Singapore models.

On our return, the Korean government contacted us and asked for more information.

I don't think they would have felt able to contact a City firm in the same way, it would have been humiliating for them.' However, he adds that, while City firms which use the international directorate are full of praise for its services, many are not aware of the extent of the support it provides.Clifford Chance partner Michael Matthews, whose term as Law Society President in 1998/99 did much to endear the Law Society to the City, says: 'The international work of the Law Society is very important, as the City has a great interest in other countries allowing them to open offices.'George Staple, Mr Matthews' partner and fellow Law Society Council member for the City, agrees that the Society's representational functions on behalf of the City can be very effective.

However, he adds: 'The Law Society must work harder to understand City concerns.'The Law Society's current programme of reform includes consideration of the establishment of a specialist section to cater for the City.

City of London Law Society chairman Tony Sacker says he is 'generally supportive' of the reforms.

'We're interested in having an effective organisation, well-led and capable of representing the profession,' he says.

He also supports a reduction in the size of the Council.

'You can't run any organisation with a governing body of 75 people.

No City law firm with 75 partners would get them all together every time a decision needed to be taken.'When it was looking at the reform of the regulatory framework, the Law Society approached the City and asked if it would like to put together a d iscussion paper on conflicts of interest to be used as a basis for consulting the rest of the profession.

Mr Sacker approves of the approach: 'This is the way in which the Law Society should be working with the City'.