In Great Britain, as far back as July 2003, Sir David Clementi was appointed to carry out an independent review of the regulatory framework for legal services in England and Wales. In December 2004, Sir David published a Report following his Review. The report was analysed by a number of luminaries, including Rob Baldwin, Julia Black, Martin Cave, Richard Brealey, Julian R Franks, Paul A. Grout, James Dow and Carlos Lapuerto, Jordi Blanes Vidal, Ian Jewitt, Clare Leaver and Stephen Davies.1
The bill as it will be observed, addresses three basic objectives, the primary being controlling of the legal profession. In the draft, and in the ultimate submissions of the bill, great care has been taken to ensure that the legal profession continues to be fearless and is allowed to retain its independence, and the faith of the customer, enshrined in the principle of 'Privilege' is also kept. In the draft, we see the emphasis on this.5
Therefore the CONTROLS envisaged is more to regulate the functioning and not to hamper with the independence of the legal practitioner. It addresses the concerns of unbridled misuse of legal protection and extraordinary abilities and privileges accorded to them. Giving the genuine practitioner a right and privilege to practice, removing the scrounge of unauthorized practitioners, and regulation of commercial companies, which can now be formed in the practice of law, is the chief laudable objective, with a separate body, which will oversee the functioning of all bar councils and associations has now sought to bring some order and create a more efficient legal system.
The most important impact will be on removing 'Village Barristers'. Those quacks who profess knowledge of law, and act as touts between the lawyer and the client. This bill gives definitions of a legal practitioner, and does away with those not qualified to practice law altogether from the judicial field. It is ironic that Great Britain had to take this long to bring in this legislation to stream line the legal profession, while elsewhere as in India for example, the Advocates Act did away with practitioners other than trained lawyers in one stroke, as far