The high street's concerns

Change may be inevitable, and there may be lots of exciting opportunities for firms to make lots of exciting money by computer, and yes, the Government may well feel more sympathy towards the “consumer” (what those of us who deal with individuals’ lives and problems rather than peddlers of a “one size fits all” product refer to as a “client”) than to us, but does that make it right for this everyone in this country?

And has anyone noticed that the whole “ABS-consumer-rules-isn’t-it-wonderful-and-we-can-try-out-all-this-cool-stuff” lobby predicate their whole argument on two simple and wholly fallacious assumptions?

1. Legal service users can pay.
2. Legal service users can choose what to pay for.

Take business by IT for example. Yes, three out of four homes in this country may have access to the internet. But what about the one in four who don’t? Forget about 25% of the population? Cut them off from the advice they might need? Yes, some people may be able to choose where they want to spend their money. What about those who can’t afford anything?

Choice? Yes, some people in the market for legal services may be well-enough informed (and have the time before the situation becomes an emergency) to shop around and make an informed choice about the sort of service they want (assuming there still is a choice when market forces have done their bit). What about those who aren’t?

The whole ABS argument is focussed on the needs of the paying middle and upper market which can afford legal services. No one mentions those who can’t. No-one mentions those who are alone, vulnerable, frightened, perhaps cowed, abused and damaged. The ones who aren’t used to the concept of having rights, let alone choosing how to exercise them. Does anyone honestly think ABSs are going to benefit them in the slightest?

No. All ABSs will do is force them away from the only people who actually listen to them and take the time with them at the moment. Once the High Street has been squeezed out of the market by the venture capitalists (and let’s be honest, economically, independents in any sector can’t compete well with the giants, except as minority niche curios where the giants aren’t really interested), the vulnerable, the poor and the medium earners will be forced to accept not what service they need or what is right for them, but whatever “product” the big corporation ABS is willing to offer because it makes money. Or nothing.

And, if they can’t pay for it, they can accept whatever crumbs of charity (sorry – pro bono) the corporation is graciously pleased to offer at the time, assuming the prevailing market conditions have left them enough of a budget to allow them patronise and exploit clients, then parade them before the media to improve the corporation’s own image. So much for acting in your client’s interests and not being affected by any other, including your own. Or the vulnerable can simply do without. And can anyone realistically see the Co-op or Tesco offering representation to people charged with shoplifting?

That is the concern of the high street – who’s going to look after our clients as well as we do? Because none of the big firms are willing to do it and, frankly, they can’t. They don’t have the skills and they aren’t structured for it. Being honest, the big firms are about as capable of looking after our clients as we on the high street are of working on a multi-million pound PLC takeover.

To suggest anything else is just foolishness. And to dismiss those concerns as cunningly disguised self-interest is downright offensive. And it’s that lack of understanding that has put us all where we are now – divided.

Who’s really worrying about the “consumer” here?