The legal profession's dirty secret... it's still a profession

In many minds it was decided years ago that the legal profession is that only in name, having long since abandoned professional status in any meaningful sense to become a business. The reasons for this conclusion are so obvious - expansion, financial transparency, adoption of modern management practices etc - that they barely need recounting. And, like most cliches, it became one because there's a good deal of truth in it.

And, yet, the longer I observe lawyers and law firms, the more convinced I become that the law remains basically a profession - rather than a business in the sense that many understand it. The outward changes that made people think of law firms as businesses were significant shifts but, in terms of the underlying ethos, they have had a surprisingly cosmetic impact. The mindset of a profession, good and bad, largely remains.

That's partly because you just can't sustain the values that many attach to these opposing standards. When the ‘profession vs business' debate once simmered, these terms were a proxy for other characteristics assigned according to viewpoint. The critics of the emerging 'one-stop shops' saw the term 'profession' as denoting virtue, independence, long-termism and a dedication to excellence to the exclusion of seeking profit. Those on the other side of the line saw 'business' as representing innovation, expansion, ambition and the embracing of a service culture. You saw vice or virtue depending on where you stood.

But in many cases, good and bad qualities awkwardly mingled within both camps, stubbornly emerging in places where they shouldn't in theory be. Human nature is what it is. Old school professions were frequently capable of hugely self-interested behaviour - a tendency often illustrated by an attitude to client service that could be high-handed and unresponsive. Indeed, one reason that lawyers were supposed to have embraced business was because corporate law firms started to acknowledge the idea that client service was maybe a) a good thing and b) something through which they could gain an edge on rivals.

And some of that celebrated independence was as much a product of self-regard and myopia as it ever was of high ethical ideals. Anyway, the supposed independence of the profession was often a myth - when commercial law firms were smaller and acted for the same clients for generations it was easy to become hugely reliant on a small band of major clients.

The less respectable observation for those holding the wistful notion of a once-unspoiled professionalism, is that a profession is a business that is organised for the tastes of those already working in it, not those wanting its services (or those that wish to join it).

It is telling that some of the constructs of the modern law firm - such as lockstep -­ were modern adaptations, not the traditions of a gentler age. The modern lockstep partnership was ushered in not to facilitate the global firm, it was used to impose collegiality, common interest and long-termism on what were, in some cases, individualistic and sharp-elbowed places run with an iron fist by one or two founders (who often took most of the profit). So much for the consensual management.

In short, there was far more of the rougher edges of capitalism in the pre-globalisation model of law firms than is generally conceded.

True, there were shifts that did move the law closer towards the classic ideal of commerce. The expansion of the profession meant that there was less in common between different branches of legal practice. The days when criminal and high street lawyers easily rubbed shoulders with City leaders did foster a common sense of professionalism, which also kept them more closely rooted in public life; when City law firms' horizons went global, unfortunately and ironically they also narrowed their role in society. Increased transparency of law firm finances also inevitably led law firms to compete on the basis of profitability. As mentioned before, the idea that ambition, innovation and giving the client what they want could be good things, turned the dial a little closer towards becoming a business.

So why argue that it still remains a profession? A lot of it comes down to partnership. Partnership is still, for good and ill, an economic club. It's a model in which the owners attempt to attract, select and then groom a chunk of the staff to be the next generation of owners. For all the management-speak City lawyers have adopted, there's still something downright communistic about that model (and that's generally a compliment - the owner-manager structure of law firms is one of the most unsung strengths of the legal business).

There is also something inherently institutional about law firms, both in themselves and in terms of their individuals. Law firms generally hire bright, hard-working people, but they get them after they've been through a narrowly-defined academic background. And the heavily structured path of law attracts those looking for, well, structure. This remains fundamentally different to the kind of individuals attracted by risky and turbulent entrepreneurial environments.

And let's face it, the junior ranks in law may be more academically polished than their predecessors, but they are also from a more narrow social stratum. Law still attracts a lot of people precisely because it is a profession. Many aspiring lawyers imagine they won't have to deal with a confusing world in which risk, opportunity and fortune jostle around chaotically and so plump for a job that offers a clearly signposted career path.

If that sounds overly negative, a pronounced streak of social liberalism remains in the law - even the upper reaches of City law. Finance partners may speak the argot of the bankers they serve, but they don't really sound like them. I've dealt with bankers in previous jobs - in comparison, lawyers don't have that Masters of the Universe self-image thang or that sense of separation from society that you see with financiers.

At the senior end, they remain about as down-to-earth as people earning seven figures can be. The fundamental act of dealing with the law keeps lawyers somewhat rooted in society.

Still not convinced? Here's the acid test. While those in private practice often act as if it's a settled debate and law is now clearly a business, you get a very different response from clients. Law firms may think that they are commercially minded and in tune with the rhythm and ethos of their clients - clients in general still see a profession.

A final thought: if institutions - be they universities or partnerships - have sustained the law in a state of professionalism, it will be the loss of those that will finally kill off the old model and usher in something else. If alternative business structures do take hold of the legal services market, then we will finally see what law as a business really looks like. Ironically, it will only be at that point when we will know what good and bad professionalism brought to law.

Related:

• Mind your own business - should clients be telling law firms how to run their shop?
• Partners confident of improving business nous