One-Stop-Shops could be the key to accessibility21 Nov 2007
By Alistair Morris, Chief Executive, Pagan Osborne

Debating the issue of the accessibility of legal services in Scotland, it is perhaps disappointing that Fergus Ewing should choose to belittle the phrase ‘one-stop-shop’, as he did in the latest Parliamentary deliberations* (14th November 2007).

‘One-stop-shop’ may sound a bit cheesy to Mr Ewing and something you would get at Buchanan Galleries, but to the general consumer it instantly means something; certainly much more than ‘multi-disciplinary practices’, which smacks of the pomposity that lawyers are constantly encouraged to lose.

He also misses the point. With legislation on the structure and regulation of the legal profession in our power, we have the opportunity to make ‘one-stop-shops’ a model of professional expertise that delivers the kind of integrated specialist services that consumers genuinely understand in a world where the complexities of managing our lives grow exponentially. It is simply no longer possible for a single lawyer to be expert in every field.

Buying a first home, maximising Government Child Trust Funds, getting into matrimonial difficulties, making investments, building a business and protecting it all for the family are matters that don’t just fall onto a solicitor’s desk. They involve property analysts, surveyors, financial advisers, fund managers, accountants and business consultants. 

Mr Ewing makes the point that as a lawyer he would have ‘run a marathon rather than fill in a tax return for a client who had any business of any complexity’. But as a good lawyer, he would recognise that that client needs to have skilled tax management and would be able to advise him on the wider implications of the various tax regimes. Tax is, after all, about interpretation of statutes and precedents. What is that about if not the law? Why then, not offer that client the complete service, by working alongside tax experts and Chartered Accountants, with one fee?

I applaud the entire thrust of the debate that has accessibility and well regulated standards at its heart.  For me, the debate about multi-disciplinary practices or one stop shops is integral to this. The chances of one professional identifying the need for other forms of advice will be far higher if the advice is seamless and provided by the same firm. As Mr Ewing rightly says, specialisms are not interchangeable, but they are complementary and joined up services are demanded by today’s time poor consumers.

Pagan Osborne recently undertook a survey that highlights this even further. Our clients want one point of contact: one person who understands their personal circumstances to the full and who can therefore, co-ordinate the right advice and guidance to meet their unique individual needs. What they don’t want is a ‘technical’ person who talks nothing but jargon. Accessibility, not just to legal services, but to all professional services, also means making our profession user-friendly, convenient and easy to understand.

Allowing multi-disciplinary practices would also enable the profession to expand access. For many of the rural practices and sole traders, such business structures would ensure their viability in the local communities. There will be cost synergies in smaller conurbations that will in turn improve financial sustainability. One office with one rent, one photo-copier and one receptionist providing a combination of legal financial and investment advice, for example, would work for the firm.

It should also in turn lead to cheaper more cost effective ways of accessing professional advice. One-stop-shops, on that basis, could in fact be the way to ensure legal aid services are made more widely available, not another reason for them to be cut back.

My name is often used in these government debates (as indeed it was mentioned again last week) as anti-the government’s approach. This is very far from the truth. I, like everyone in the Chamber that day, recognise that the profession is changing and will have to continue to change if it is to carry on serving the Scottish people well. I am ready to embrace that change because I believe it is what the market, our clients and customers want and because if we don’t, we will be left behind by the impact of the Clementi reforms in England and Wales.

But, as everyone else in the profession recognises, that change cannot take place without safeguarding the same consumers we hope to serve. When debating the issue of multi-disciplinary practices or one-stop-shops we should focus on how to make them work, not fear them.