To paraphrase Mark Twain, reports of the death of the sole practitioner appear greatly exaggerated.

Despite their near-universal hostility to alternative business structures, delegates at last weekend’s SPG conference in Harrogate were surprisingly upbeat about the ‘perfect storm’ they must weather.

There was much to concentrate minds: ABSs, outcomes-focused regulation, conveyancing panel purges and the emasculation of legal aid all featured on a crowded agenda.

But then you have to be resilient when you choose to run your own business, especially in a recessionary climate, and there was no shortage of stoicism on show at the elegant spa town’s Majestic Hotel.

Chris Kenny, chief executive of the Legal Services Board and an evangelist for ABSs, seemed to sense the mood. ‘It’s not just about supermarkets,’ he reassured delegates.

‘A lot [of ABSs] will look like you because they will be you... It’s not about driving out small firms and I am confident [your] worst fears won’t arise. There will not be a meltdown.’

There was some discussion of mortality, but in a startling and unexpected context.

In a characteristically pugnacious address, chief legal ombudsman Adam Sampson revealed that he has received more than 10 death threats in LeO’s first few months of operation; not from lawyers, but rather from clients unhappy with the regulator’s resolution of their complaints.

Thus did Sampson graphically demonstrate that there are also benefits for the practitioner in the transition from self-regulation to a wholly independent complaints watchdog.

‘The job of the ombudsman is also to protect the profession from clients,’ he declared. ‘We take the flak.’

The ombudsman wants practitioners to handle complaints in-house where possible, but Sampson issued a plea to solicitors not to be compromised by the new system: ‘I would hate to feel that, as a result of our arrival, you have to pay people off as a "hedge" to stop them coming to us.

'There are people trying it on, perhaps to delay payment or squeeze extra money out. It is important they are not rewarded.’

This consideration will be foremost in Sampson’s mind as the ombudsman considers publishing details not only of complaints, but of firms complained against.

For now this has been kicked into the long grass, to the chagrin of the Legal Services Consumer Panel, which last month accused LeO of capitulating to ‘spurious objections from the legal profession’.

Said Sampson: ‘We have not decided whether to name solicitors’ firms or in what circumstances.

'It’s all very well for us to name, for example, the Co-op – that’s just a business risk for them – but if we were to name a high street firm we would need to understand what the consequences would be for them.

'We don’t want to rush in and do something that will damage people’s businesses unreasonably.’

If this is an encouraging portent for smaller firms in particular, there was more good news in a session entitled ‘Professional indemnity insurance – is 2011 going to be better?’

The answer would seem to be ‘yes’. Two new, A-rated insurers are poised to enter the market, the conference heard, adding much-needed choice and volume.

Leading broker Richard Brown said he is ‘90% of the way’ to agreeing terms with the pair, which he said would be writing cover for sole practitioners.

He declined to name the insurers for confidentiality reasons.

Brown, who is managing director, professions, at Prime Professions, and the SPG’s preferred broker, is optimistic that recent changes to the client financial protection rules will ‘help turn the insurance cycle down again’.

He added: ‘New insurers should mean reducing premiums in 2011, and the cycle should start to turn.

‘More firms will find it easier [than last year], but firms with a heavy exposure to conveyancing will still find it difficult.’

And that’s not all conveyancers have to contend with, the conference heard later, as Law Society chief executive Des Hudson delivered an update on its strategy to counter the recent rash of conveyancing panel purges.

The Society has enjoyed some success at getting firms reinstated to panels, but Hudson told delegates that Chancery Lane is keeping its options open as it continues to talk to the major lenders.

It is presently taking fresh legal advice on whether the Society may have grounds for protesting to the Office of Fair Trading on competition grounds.

While conceding that there has been some solicitor involvement in the upsurge in mortgage fraud, Hudson hit out at lenders’ attempts to use solicitors as ‘convenient whipping boys’ to justify their actions.

‘Andy Hornby has more to answer for in the destruction of HBoS than solicitors,’ he said, to spontaneous applause.

The lenders do not disclose their criteria for running panels, which Hudson described as a ‘ridiculous’ way to operate, but Chancery Lane does not believe it has grounds for litigation on panel exclusion.

He added: ‘We do not have a strong legal basis to challenge what they’re doing, but it’s arguable that there may be a breach of competition law.

‘But could we prove to the OFT that what they are doing is improper? And if we made a competition referral and lost, how much worse would our position be? We have, therefore, chosen the path of ­negotiation.’

Chancery Lane has agreed an appeals process with the big six lenders, he added, and continues to lobby the Council of Mortgage Lenders on the issue.

It does not help, Hudson noted, that the CML’s new chairman (Colin Walsh, managing director of Lloyds Banking Group Mortgages) works for an institution that has been ‘most resistant’ to objective criteria for panel management.

An industry-wide consultation has been agreed on developing an accepted and open set of rules on the admission to, and management of, law firm panels.

The Society is trying to persuade lenders to sign up to the principle; in the meantime, said Hudson, that competition referral remains under review.