That's something we should be proud of, and I agree that we should use it to strengthen our brand in what will soon be an open and
competitive market for legal services.
Not exact matches
Unconscionable conduct (agrees with NFF that they have not provided protection and support reforms «to provide transparency in the supply chain» and recognise that «certain classes of suppliers... are predisposed to suffering from a special disadvantage...»; misuse of
market power (
legal framework must «level the balance of
market power in negotiations...», «ensure transparency in the transmission of
market prices» and «not allow
for final
market risks to be borne by the primary producer» and provide «transparency of contract processes» - specifically, Canegrowers supports effects test and a process giving ACCC greater power to «regulate anti-
competitive behaviour and impose penalties», shifting «the decisions framework from the judicial system to a regulatory system» which would make it more accessible to small producers); collective bargaining (notes limits of Sugar Industry Act (Qld); authorisation and notification approval costly and limited and not a viable alternative - peak bodies should be able to «commence and progress collective bargaining with mills on behalf of their members» and current threshold too restrictive)»
competitive neutrality (mixed outcomes - perverse outcomes in the case of natural monopolies - suggest remove «application of
competitive neutrality provisions to natural monopoly essential
services»)
In seeking to make the
market for regulated
legal services more
competitive, it may increase the costs of regulation.
He helps law firms and
legal organizations understand why the
legal services environment is undergoing radical change and how to build sustainable and
competitive legal enterprises that can dominate the new
market for legal services.
Joe, my understanding is that the ABS model (UK & Australia) is an investment and
market place driven
competitive business model
for selling affordably
legal services globally.
The Panel's vision is «
for a
market where everyone can access high quality and affordable
legal services that meet their needs: • A
competitive legal services market where consumers are empowered and have easy access to high quality
legal advice at a fair price; • All consumers have an equal access to
legal services regardless of their personal circumstances; • Regulatory bodies have processes enabling them to take decisions which are in the consumer interest; • Consumers receive
legal advice from a diverse and competent workforce; • Consumer complaints are resolved fairly, quickly and cost - effectively.
Although the Israeli
legal market is very
competitive and law firms are constantly looking
for ways to improve their
service offerings, many law firms in Israel have yet to embrace the latest wave of legaltech.
Merger as a strategy
for growth or survival in a
competitive legal services market is fraught with issues.
The
market for limited scope
legal services is only going to grow, and smart lawyers are well advised to add this range of
services to their family law practice in order to remain
competitive.
Being a competent
legal technician is simply not enough anymore in today's
competitive market place
for legal services.
[108] Others raised the objections to alternative structures that are commonly raised: [109] that they are a threat to the profession's core values, [110] that they will trigger irresolvable conflicts of interest, [111] that lawyers will lose their independence, [112] that there is no evidence that alternative structures have increased access to justice in Australia or England & Wales, [113] that law firms can attract employees by paying
competitive salaries without the need to offer employee shareholding, [114] that the burden of proof lies with those who advocate
for alternative structures, [115] that there is no way to regulate alternative structures, [116] that alternative structures will lead to a consolidated
market for legal services, [117] that more research is required, [118] etc..
As a former general counsel and chief executive officer, Kent counsels the leaders of Am Law 100, 200, Global 100 and leading specialty firms on the challenges and opportunities they face, in an increasingly
competitive industry, as a result of the globalization, consolidation, specialization, and segmentation of the
market for legal services.
[ii] It could do so
for all of Canada and would be in a better position to estimate the impact of the highly
competitive LegalZoom, [iii] LegalX etc., commercial
legal services market than can any law society.
The aim is to encourage new entrants into the
legal services market to bring new ways of working and new
competitive pressures: these will increase choice
for consumers, while offering better - tailored and better value packages of professional
services.
Law firms and
legal organizations consult me to better understand why the
legal services environment is undergoing radical change, and they retain me to advise their lawyers how to build sustainable and
competitive legal enterprises that can dominate the new
market for legal services.
The priorities
for the Law Society are to ensure that the regulatory framework does not conflate consumer interest with the public interest in pursuit of a
competitive market; nor stifle competition and innovation within the profession; but to secure a level playing field
for all
legal service providers.
But the name of the game is not deregulation; it's what I call right regulation: putting in place intelligent regulations that ensure the
markets for legal goods and
services are functional and
competitive.
In this article I endeavor to set forth a few basic facts and principles that can aid law firm leaders to obtain a large, sustainable
competitive advantage in the
market for legal services.