Statistic 3: In terms of seniority of practice of lawyers in small firms-plus-two, starting with the senior and working your way
down to junior members of the bar, you again get inverted triangles (for sole proprietorships and for law firms with up to five
lawyers).

Given that large numbers of lawyers of different seniorities practise in small firms-plus-two, ie Statistic 1, Statistic 2 and part of Statistic 3 read with Statistic 5, it is safe to project that the small firm is going to be a constant feature for the foreseeable future. However, Statistic 1 gives no comfort regarding the projection for the sole proprietor because Statistic 4 shows only 25 juniors are sole proprietors. If it is correct to say that few juniors prefer to walk the beat alone based on this statistic, it could be that the sole proprietor is a dying breed.

On the other hand, there is a possible fluidity of movement between the small firm and the sole proprietor, and indeed between lawyers from even drastically different size firms, so that the fact that there are few juniors who are sole proprietors does not necessarily mean that the light would soon go out for sole proprietors. I comfort myself that the small law firms cater to a niche market — possibly to the poorer lay persons with shallower pockets; probably to clientele who prefer to deal with a lawyer they can call a friend. Such a niche market would and should, be the reason why the small firm will not disappear. As long as this niche market exists, no one can ordain him out of existence. But we then get the problems imperfectly mirrored in the analogous friendly neighbourhood provision shop when compared to the large supermarket with its conveniently wider range of, generally cheaper, goods. It is the problem of having sufficient clientele to not just meet your overheads but to earn a comfortable extra to manage a respectable standard of living perceived to be fitting for a professional man.

So what should be the scope of work of this Committee? At one level of sensitivity, I feel we should not be seen as just a lobby for small firm interests. This would lead to division within the Society. At another level of sensitivity, I feel we should be alert to issues of turf (in not taking on practice issues perceived unique to the small practice, which properly belong to other committees). That said, I hope the Committee will identify the areas from time to time in which the small law firm is in need of special assistance, such as assistance to boost the professionalism of its practitioners so they can better serve the public interest, which is what we are all about. A possible short (but not lacking in ambition) wish list (crafted as questions) follows:

• Should a small firm lawyer be allowed to attend courses/seminars for lower fees?
• How can he be helped to get access to law books/technological gadgetry which would enable him to be as efficient as the boys in the bigger firms?
• How can he keep up with changes in the law, practice and procedures in areas of interest to him without it having to cost an arm and a leg?
• If he desires to specialise and yet wishes to remain in a small firm, how can we help him — can a small firm specialise?
• Are there any prejudices towards his kind generated by the fact that proposed rule changes are on the table meant to reduce the incidence of dishonesty amongst them, particularly the sole proprietors?
• How can these prejudices be dispelled?
• Do lawyers doing so-called runners of the workshop-claim variety need any guidance on any ethical issues?
• Why are sole proprietors and small law firms not flocking to use the group law practice when it is theoretically such a ‘powerful’ tool — a versatile umbrella designed to help you make rain on the cheap and still not get drenched in red ink?
• I understand from a high of 12, we have now about five group law practices. Do they not appreciate how useful this practice mode is?

Some sole proprietors are hesitant to come on board the Committee. Possibly they have been too long alone. Since the Committee is very new, it should try to become effective as soon as possible. To be effective quickly, it has to be able to reach out to all its constituents with minimum delay. One man left out of the loop would be one man’s invaluable experience lost.

From the principle that no one should be left out of the loop, I would suggest that all lawyers in small firms should ex-officio be members of this Committee. Such membership would be free, no subscription in money or kind required. They would be the outer ring of two concentric circles of the Committee.

The inner ring would be those who volunteer to serve on the Committee. At the time of writing this article, 15 lawyers have asked to join the Committee (there follows below, a list of the Committee members that have been formalised prior to this article being published). Within the inner ring, there could be different layers/types of participation/involvement. Whilst the formal mechanism of the meeting cannot be avoided, much of the work of the Committee could be conducted via telephone and e-mail. It would be a worthy aim to get all lawyers in the small firms to feed back their views about practice experiences they have, their wish-lists and other matters.