Guest post: Quality in law – endlessly invoked yet never defined

Here’s a question that’s been bothering me of late – what, exactly, is a quality legal service? You’ll have noticed that this phrase has become so common that it no longer requires an adjective (unless it’s poor quality). Many seem to think that if you say often enough that you provide one, it must be true.

It has come to the fore with the debate over criminal legal aid. First there is the Quality Assurance Scheme for Advocates (QASA). This elides ‘quality’ with competence. ‘The aim of QASA,’ says the application to the Legal Services Board for approval of the scheme, ‘is to assess and assure the competence of all advocates conducting criminal advocacy in courts in England and Wales.’

Continue reading “Guest post: Quality in law – endlessly invoked yet never defined”

The glue that binds

As the Swiss Verein legal structure becomes increasingly popular among global law firms, the debate hots up over whether its use is a true representation of global expansion. But what is a Verein and who does it benefit?

The Swiss Verein is all the rage. Law firms have turned to the legal structure to help co-ordinate large international mergers, modelling their expansive structures after the Big Four accounting firms: KPMG, PwC, Deloitte and Ernst & Young. With the appetite for mergers continuing unabated in 2012, as seen recently with the March collaboration of King & Wood Mallesons, the Verein seems to be the structure of choice for law firms.

Continue reading “The glue that binds”