I readily accept that the work that I do within a 7 partner firm in Bath, UK is fundamentally different to the work that my colleagues in Slaughter and May or Allen and Overy may do.

I do not see that a separate limb representing or regulating different sectors should be problematic. The requisite skills and compliances are different after all. If there was another body, it is not automatic that it will overshadow the existing one, or that either one will be held in higher regard than the other.

Would it not reflect the Court system itself with its divisions between Chancery, Family, Probate and the like?

Where you have an excellent point, I feel, is in highlighting the public interests as a whole given the fallout we are all experiencing from the actions of the banks and institutions over the last however many years. That suggests that the regulatory body should hold powers and responsibility for guardianship of social/commercial mores and would require a far more proactive, intrusive body.

I cannot think that you will find much appetite for that within the profession even if the suggestion was broadly approved.

I don’t like to assign blame for the chasm between biglaw and small-law in the bar, but I do believe that larger firms are to blame. Their lack of curiosity about solo practice and small firms is appalling. Case in point – most solos I know regularly follow blogs like Above the Law, WSJ Law blog and Adam Smith Esq. to keep on top of events in the biglaw world. By contrast, I’ve never met a single large firm lawyer who has read, let alone heard of blogs such as MyShingle, BuildASoloPracticeLLC or Chuck Newton Rides the Third Wave, to name just a few.

The chasm is a significant problem during this period of economic chaos. Large firms dominate the ABA and local bars and they will implement rules – like the conflict rules – to help preserve their practices. Look at the bars reaction to sites like Avvo that allow solo and small firm lawyers to present a professional presence online at no cost. What about onerous advertising rules that restrict lawyers from engaging in social networking? These rules disproportionately impact new solos and small firms which rely on these marketing measures for their livelihood.
These days, many solos are now looking at opportunities to form affiliations or alliances where firms would market and work on projects collaboratively but maintain their own identity. When large firms (which have thrived on the one stop shopping model) start losing business to these sleek, low-cost alliances, I predict that they will seek to change bar rules to prohibit law firms from engaging in joint marketing without substantial disclosures that would undermine the value.
If we can’t bring the bar together, we will find ourselves competing over a diminishing pie, and it won’t be pretty.