In one of Chris Grayling’s last acts of his controversial tenure as Lord Chancellor, the Ministry of Justice launched – as part of Government’s deregulation drive - a review of legal services regulation and the 2007 Legal Services Act (LSA), but found little consensus about what sort of regime the LSA should be replaced with, so the whole plan rewrite the statutory framework was quietly abandoned in favour of incremental reform.   The idea of a regulatory restructure though has not been entirely dropped, both in last year’s Autumn statement and this year’s Budget the Treasury have intervened with further tinkering, including moving claims management regulation to the Financial Conduct Authority, and making legal services a priority sector for its “better deal” competiveness strategy. Further proposals are now on the table for amending the LSA to strengthen regulators’ independence and lighten burdens, as announced by Lord Faulks shortly before his departure from the MoJ. Crucially though the Government triggered a market study into legal services by the Competition and Markets Authority CMA. The CMA has published a preliminary report with wide ranging analysis on consumer detriment, value for money, the function of regulation in promoting price competition, market entry and innovation, and has found that “legal services markets are not functioning as well as they might.”   In LAG’s view we need to keep the narrow and often technical issues of regulation linked to the broader to challenge of improving access to justice. In this respect the CMA interim report, whilst useful in squarely addressing the issue of “asymmetric information” and lack of price transparency, fails to fully comprehend the scale of unmet demand and legal exclusion, and the negative impact that legal aid reforms have had on the sector. It fails to capture the overriding trend that despite some innovative Alternative Business structure activity and increased use of interactive technology at the retail end of the market, an ever larger market share is being taken by elite global firms which far outpace rest of legal market. The competition regime is tending to favour the hyper-growth of the top 10 firms whilst leaving the rest behind; this is not a balanced market, let alone one capable of reaching out into communities and providing service appropriate to the needs of low income consumers. With solicitors commercial rates in the top largest usually London based law firms now exceeding £1,000 an hour, the system is producing Rolls Royce law rather than cut price Tesco law.   In our response to the review we argue that there is a compelling case for Government intervention to ensure that legal services for dealing the problems of everyday life are genuinely affordable and accessible for all, including for the lowest income consumers. Improving consumer awareness through public legal education should also be priority. Recognising the scale of unmet need, we need a whole new strategy for legal services and access to justice focussing on advice and legal support. The Low Commission’s blueprint might be a good starting point.     James Sandbach Policy Manager