The Law Society, in my experience, is rather good at making things complicated. For evidence, look no further than the new internal governance arrangements which received lukewarm support from the Legal Services Board shortly before Christmas. This may seem like a dry and esoteric issue to most. Virtually everyone, in fact, which is why pretty much nobody else seems to write about or comment on it. They are wrong.

The new caring, sharing Solicitors Regulation Authority issued a caring, sharing press release shortly before Christmas. Entitled “Take care with vulnerable clients, SRA urges”, it admonished solicitors “to ensure they pay close attention to clients’ needs from the outset to make sure they deliver a proper standard of service”. It is one of the most patronising things I have seen from the SRA.

Samantha Barrass, executive director of supervision, risk and standards at the Solicitors Regulation Authority, responds to Michaela Hardwicke’s blog last week, The scary new world of OFR, to argue that the SRA has prepared the profession for the new regulatory environment and outlines how it expects to engage with firms in the future.

What do you get when you have 60 solicitors in a room discussing outcomes-focused regulation? You get concern, frustration, cynicism, lack of trust and an overwhelming desire for answers and solutions. There was not only a natural desire to understand and comply with the new regulatory regime but also a huge amount of frustration over the lack of guidance from the Solicitors Regulation Authority.

We may be in an era of outcomes-focused regulation, but nobody thought to tell those who drew up the deal between the Law Society and Solicitors Regulation Authority over their governance arrangements. To me it is further evidence that the arrangement by which the SRA is both independent and yet part of the Law Society is unlikely to stand the test of time