David Lee: Freedom - or a squeeze on the small?

IT CAUSED the biggest schism of modern times in the Scottish legal profession. The president of the Law Society admitted its members were "split up the middle" over alternative business structures.

The initial proposal was called Tesco Law because it held out the prospect of 100 per cent ownership of law firms by supermarkets (hence Tesco law, which sounds better than Lidl law) and others.

In the end, after internecine warfare, a compromise of sorts was reached and following yesterday's vote Scottish law firms can bring in partners who are not legally qualified. Supporters of change quote the safety net as proof that this is no free-for-all - solicitors and other regulated professionals must have a majority share of at least 51 per cent in any new legal services business.

However, critics are still concerned about who those"other regulated professionals" might be, and about a loss of independence across the legal sector.

There are also concerns about small legal firms who have little or no chance of bringing in outside investment, who could be squeezed as larger practices hook up with fellow professionals to offer a broader range of services.

The provision of legal services in the small towns of Scotland must be carefully monitored.

Yet larger firms (and some not-so-large ones), supported by the Law Society, say they need extra freedom to compete in UK and international markets.Alternative business structures, they argue, provide greater flexibility and opportunity. Consumer Focus Scotland agrees that more competition should lead to more choice. Its director also argues that access to justice will be better, not worse. But many remain unhappy.