Law Society deep freeze ABS in Scotland for at least two more years!
A deep freeze of ABS in Scotland, for at least two more years, was announced yesterday by the Law Society of Scotland.
I, unfortunately, saw this coming a couple of weeks ago when, at a webinar on implementation of the Regulation of Legal Services (Scotland) Act 2025, it was indicated by the Law Society that:
We are still working our way through the (substantial) changes made to the ABS requirements which will mean we will need to revise our regulatory scheme which will then need to go back to the ScotGov and Lord President for approval. We hope to say more on this soon.
I commented, at the time:
Really?! There are only five sections in the 2025 Act (sections 84 to 88) dealing with ABS. These, together, could not be classed as “substantial” compared to what was contained in the 2010 Act. Significant, perhaps, is the reduction from 51% solicitor ownership to 0%. However, the possibility of such percentage changes were foreseen in the 2010 Act. That Act allowed for this by order of the Scottish Ministers. Thus, the existing regulatory scheme surely covers the position already if it even has to. If not, why not?
No answers to those questions were given by the Law Society of Scotland.
Deep Freeze of ABS in Scotland
Now we know that they aren’t really going to work their way through these minor (not substantial) changes made to ABS requirements. Instead, they are going to deep freeze ABS in Scotland for at least two years and simply forget about it!
In the announcement, published on the Law Society of Scotland website yesterday, they inform us that:
The Legal Services (Scotland) Act 2010 provided the statutory basis for law firms to be owned by non-solicitors for the first time. The Law Society was authorised by the Scottish Government in 2021 to be an approved regulator of these new entities, called licensed legal services providers (LLSPs). While significant preparatory work has been done, the system for authorising and regulating the new businesses is not yet up and running and new legislation now makes further changes to the LLSP regulatory framework.
The Scottish Parliament passed the new Regulation of Legal Services (Scotland) Act in May 2025. The new legislation provides sweeping reforms to the way the existing solicitor profession is to be regulated. It also made changes to the make-up of LLSPs and how they are to be regulated.
The Law Society’s Regulatory Committee, made up of solicitor and non-solicitor members, has therefore concluded that it would be appropriate to prioritise delivery of key parts of the new 2025 Act in the short term. This includes work on a whole new system of business level regulation of 1,200 existing law firms. The committee also agreed to focus on implementing the improvements to the complaints system, recognising that this had been a matter of particular focus for MSPs who had highlighted how the existing system was too slow for consumers in resolving disputes and issues of misconduct.
The committee therefore agreed to defer further work on LLSPs for the next two years. Noting that only limited interest had been expressed so far by firms in terms of becoming LLSPs, the committee agreed to return to the issue in 2027.
So let us break this down:
“The Legal Services (Scotland) Act 2010 provided the statutory basis for law firms to be owned by non-solicitors for the first time”
Indeed. And that was in 2010. We are now in 2025. 15 years later and still no sign of ABS in Scotland. In 2016 (nine years ago) the Gazette of the Law Society of England & Wales referred to ABS in Scotland being rarer than Nessie. At that time the Law Society of Scotland told the Gazette that there was no timescale for implementing ABS in Scotland. Was ABS in Scotland really in deep freeze back then?
“The Law Society was authorised by the Scottish Government in 2021 to be an approved regulator”
Indeed. And that was in 2021. Four years ago. At the time this was heralded by the Law Society of Scotland under the headline “ABS era dawns as Society appointed approved regulator“. They said back then:
The Society is currently building the policies and processes that will support the approved regulatory scheme, which is due to launch in 2022.
So in December 2021 they were expecting to launch in 2022.
Ken Dalling, then President of the Law Society of Scotland, said:
It has taken significant effort to get to this stage and we are working on the policies and processes needed to support the new regulatory framework. It will ensure licensed providers operate to high professional standards and that there are robust consumer protections in place, as there are for clients of solicitor firms.
Back in the Deep Freezer for ABS in Scotland
But the reality was that ABS in Scotland went into deep freeze again in 2022.
At a meeting at the Royal Faculty of Procurators in Glasgow on 13 October 2022 the then Chief Executive of the Law Society of Scotland, Diane McGiffen, indicated that the Society had put a pause on the launch promised in December 2021.
This was apparently due to the announcement by the Scottish Government on 6 September 2022 to introduce a Legal Services Regulation Reform Bill in 2022/23.
The Bill might affect ABS and the Society wanted to know what the detail was!
I pointed out, then, how ridiculous this was. Provisions in an Act from 2010 were still not (at that point 12 years later) implemented by the Law Society of Scotland. Those provisions could and should simply have been implemented then as enacted.
It was not for the Law Society to pause the process to consider what effect possible future legislation may have on the existing unimplemented legislation. It was yet another example, in a long history of them, of the Law Society of Scotland dragging their heals when it comes to the introduction of ABS, which in Scotland remain as rare as Nessie.
However, in 2023 we were given a small glimmer of hope. The Law Society of Scotland said on 10 August 2023:-
Changes to the Society’s Practice and Accounts Rules at the end of 2022, meant changes to the LP [Licensed Legal Services Providers] regulatory scheme rules were needed. The Society, as required by statute, re-submitted the scheme for approval by Scottish Ministers. It is working closely with the Scottish Government to progress matters, following their consultation on the updated scheme, prior to launching later this year.
So this was yet another “later this year”. That, as usual, came and went with promises yet again broken. ABS in Scotland simply remained in deep freeze.
“New legislation now makes further changes to the LLSP regulatory framework”
These are minor (not substantial). If in 2023 the scheme was ready to launch, why is it not now? Even if some small tweaks might be needed to it following on from the Regulation of Legal Services (Scotland) Act 2025? Why can’t that simply be done now as a matter of priority and without any need to deep freeze ABS in Scotland?
“Appropriate to prioritise delivery of key parts of the new 2025 Act in the short term”
Why would you prioritise “key parts” of the new 2025 Act (that still have to be brought into force by the Scottish Ministers) when you have still not implemented key parts of the 2010 Act that has been in force for 15 years?
Is the reduction of 51% to 0% lawyer ownership of law firms in Scotland not a “key part” of the 2025 Act? I have previously suggested that it is the most significant part of that legislation. A fact ignored by the Law Society of Scotland.
“Only limited interest had been expressed so far by firms in terms of becoming LLSPs”
On what basis do the Law Society of Scotland make this claim? Have they asked their members? They haven’t asked me.
Law firms cannot express an interest in terms of becoming an ABS (LLSP) until the application process is actually launched. There is no process in place to express an interest in advance of that.
This is a statement made from nowhere with no substance to back it up.
I know that it is simply not the case.
I believe that the Law Society of Scotland are about to find out that they have misread the room.
The Will of the Scottish Parliament is not a Deep Freeze of ABS in Scotland
In any event, even if there was any truth in the statement on limited interest in ABS, it is completely irrelevant.
The Scottish Parliament in 2010 (15 years ago) decided that ABS should be allowed in Scotland. This had a 51% lawyer ownership requirement. Then in 2025, they decided that the 51% rule should be eliminated.
In so doing Siobhian Brown MSP, explained:
This simplifies the regulatory framework and potentially broadens the pool of eligible professionals which will encourage more diverse ownership structures within the legal profession and foster innovation and competition while maintaining high standards of professional conduct.
A very recent (Summer 2025) ‘UK Legal Services Market Report‘ [PDF] by strategy& (part of the PwC network) states that:
A decade after the liberalisation of the UK legal market, we are now witnessing a genuine diversity of business models and strategies reshaping the sector.
That, of course, should have read “English & Welsh” legal market as Scotland cannot be included within that statement. Scotland has been left behind now for 14 years and counting. The first ABS in England & Wales was licensed on 6 October 2011. Law firms in Scotland need a level playing field with England & Wales. The Scottish Government recognise that and so should the Law Society of Scotland.
The Law Society of Scotland have a duty to implement the will of the Scottish Parliament. Their failure to do so for over 15 years is a clear dereliction of their duties. It is one that should have consequences.
Prepare for a Thaw in the Deep Freeze of ABS in Scotland
Members of the Law Society of Scotland will not tolerate this latest deep freeze of ABS in Scotland. The Law Society of Scotland should prepare for an early thaw.
Update – 8 September 2025
Scottish Legal News published, today, an adapted version of this blog post incorporating the comment below made by Professor Stephen Mayson over the weekend, as an Opinion Piece by me here: Why the Law Society cannot defer ABS in Scotland for two more years
Update – 20 September 2025
Over the past week the English Legal press reacted with bewilderment, but perhaps no real surprise, to the news:
- The Lawyer: Abdication of duty by Law Society of Scotland
- The Law Society Gazette: Godot before ABS in Scotland?
Reactions on Law Society deep freeze ABS in Scotland for at least two more years!
On LinkedIn the following comments have been made:-
Rob Aberdein (Building Scotland’s most exciting Solicitor Estate Agent):
All lawyers in Scotland need to read what Brian Inkster says here.
I believe that it is critically important for the Scottish legal profession that ABS are introduced without further delay.
Why?
1. Two of the biggest issues facing the profession are succession planning and access to growth capital. ABS helps address both.
2. A level playing field – with two English ABS already operating in Scotland, Scottish firms are at a competitive disadvantage. This is inequitable.
-+-+-+-+-+-
Mitch Kowalski (General Counsel/Senior Real Estate Counsel | Commercial • Development • Governance (ICD.D) • Risk • Airport):
Spot on. Incredibly disappointing blunder.
Charles Uniman (Legal Tech Startup Evangelist and Founder & Host of the Legal Tech StartUp Focus community):
From Wikipedia: “. . . the thinkers of the Scottish Enlightenment asserted the importance of human reason combined with a rejection of any authority that could not be justified by reason. In Scotland, the Enlightenment was characterised by a thoroughgoing empiricism and practicality where the chief values were improvement, virtue, and practical benefit for the individual and society as a whole.”
David Hume, Adam Smith, et al. are turning in their graves at this benighted behavior towards ABS in a wellspring of enlightened thinking.
-+-+-+-+-+-
Stephen Mayson (Lead, Independent Review of Legal Services Regulation (England & Wales); professor of law; independent non-executive chair, director and advisor; Bencher, Lincoln’s Inn):
The powers granted by the Scottish Parliament that would allow ABSs are, like the equivalent powers south of the border, permissive. They will not – and should not – be relevant or appeal to all law firms. But it is not for the LSS to decide whether or not that choice should be available: Parliament has already said that it should. If even only one firm expressed an interest, it should now be possible for that firm to act on it.
It appears that there is some form of capture that is driving regulation in a certain direction and away from the public interest as expressed by Parliament. It is clearly not capture by the membership, who have not been consulted and therefore have expressed no view. So where, exactly, is the origin and authority for this blocking/delaying tactic?
Once again, the conflict between regulation and representation, when both reside in the same body, is writ large here. What a shame that Parliament did not heed the message that so many of us offered that, for the benefit of society, the pace of change and, indeed, a strong and thriving legal sector in the twenty-first century, this conflict must not be allowed to mandate inaction.
Me:
Very well put, as always. The question now is will The Scottish Government and/or The Scottish Parliament do anything about this blocking/delaying tactic?
-+-+-+-+-+-
Chris Kenny (Chief Executive at MDDUS):
Excellent post, Brian, which Stephen reinforces in this comment. But it’s not just that LSS are apparently seeking to thwart the will of the legislation by delaying implementation. The Act gives them a specific duty to regulate to promote “quality, innovation and competition.” In blocking diversity in ownership and funding structures, they appear to be positively failing in their own specific obligations . This is not a risk free position for them to adopt.
Me:
Thanks Chris. Indeed. Their inaction should have consequences.
-+-+-+-+-+-
Rob Marrs (Head of ESG at Wood Mackenzie):
No longer my job to go into bat for the Law Society but I think Professor Mayson is incorrect.
Yes there is a legal framework for ABS but I *think* that remains at the discretion of the regulator. The law doesn’t mandate, it permits.
Now, of course, any member (or member of the public) is within their rights to critique how that discretion is used or not used!
And members in particular have avenues open to them to push for change. From memory these include lobbying council members (not much good here as the Reg Comm is independent but certainly no harm), attending the AGM and getting stuff on the agenda, or petitioning for an EGM/SGM.
Most obviously I would always suggest to those in favour of a particular regulatory direction to apply to become members of the Regulatory Committee. If members of the public or ‘’civic Scotland’’ want that then they have the same avenue available.
People used to complain about the Diploma. In over a decade I worked with many solicitors (and lay people) who came onto the E&T Committee. I interviewed many more. Only a handful ever mentioned they’d scrap the DPLP. Some of them got on Committee (and continued with that view). Most didn’t apply.
I have no real views on ABS. I think it will work for some firms and not for others. My only q – which isn’t directly relevant to the topic here but is tangentially interesting – has it helped access to justice in England and Wales? We seem to be told it is working down there (great – an evidence base) but we also see endless headlines about how access to justice is even worse there than in Scotland.
Can it be both? Again, not an argument in favour or against. Just a thought!
Me:
Section 12 of the Legal Services (Scotland) Act 2010 reads:
12 Regulatory schemes
(1) An approved regulator must—
(a) make a regulatory scheme for licensing and regulating the provision of legal services by its licensed legal services providers, and
(b) apply the scheme in relation to them.
I don’t think a court of law would interpret “must” as being discretionary.
Robb Marrs:
Very true… and with no timeframe attached.
As I say, not my job to argue one way or t’other and happy to defer to others!
There are options ahead of the membership who want the Society to move.
Some outlined in my initial post. Others would be finding out how many people actually want ABS (if it is 100 firms then there is evidence of interest that the Reg Comm perhaps didn’t know). Raising it consistently at roadshows with President. Or I suppose members could resort to a stinging letter in the Journal…
The key one for me has always been getting involved in Regulatory Committees. It is usually a surprising amount of work. Some (most?) of it unglamorous! People don’t get much thanks for it. But if I wanted change and was frustrated at the pace (and fair enough!) I’d be getting myself on Reg Comm or convincing someone else of a similar view to do so.
The Reg Comm is independent of council, chaired by a lay person and 50:50 solicitor/lay. None of those people are also on Council. That’s the route to change.
Me:
I doubt an obligation on The Law Society of Scotland that they “must” do it, could be interpreted as it being reasonable for them to take 15 years to do so and then defer matters for at least a further two years. I think they find themselves in a very sticky wicket as a result of this latest deferral.
As Stephen Mayson pointed out, numbers wanting to do it is irrelevant (although I am aware of a good number who are interested in the possibility being available to them). They “must” do it. Numbers do not come into it.
It shouldn’t be the case that to get them to do something that they “must” do, you should have to join a committee to vote the way that they should have been voting!
However, I note that the Regulatory Committee has a plethora of sub-committees and that doesn’t appear to include an ABS (LLSP) sub-committee. Perhaps, if the task is too much for them, they need to form one and fill it will people who understand and are passionate about ABS and let them make it happen?
Rob Marrs:
That’s fair. I suppose I am a victim of my experience. I used to see endless discussions from people who wanted to reform the route to qualification.
Very, very rarely did anyone who wanted change ever step forward. I can say (hand on heart!) they’d have been appointed if they had and been quality. I always enjoyed contrarian voices on a Committee!
Of course, an individual member may not wish to come forward but if more such minded individuals got involved… you’d see change (I would guess).
Me:
The instance we are debating here is a bit different from that though.
Your experience relates to where reform is sought and those saying there is a need are not putting themselves forward to Committee to seek to make the change they consider is necessary.
Here the reform has been made by two acts of Parliament. The Regulatory Committee and/or the Law Society of Scotland should be jolly well getting on with implementing that reform without the need for people to join the committee to simply tell them the bleeding obvious!
Rob Marrs:
I think we are both right. Should they be moving? Probably yes although I don’t know all the details behind the decision (nor should I!). So a win for you.
The fact of the matter is – for whatever reason – they aren’t moving.. You are frustrated with that. I am guessing other members are too. You shouldn’t have to get more involved. But the fact is as outlined: they aren’t moving.
Next time there are positions on that committee come up just make sure lots of pro-ABS people apply. Next meeting agenda: bingo.
Now, you feel that shouldn’t be necessary. Absolutely fine and fair enough. But we all have to play the ball as you find it not where we would like it to be. All it would take is a few people to change direction
-+-+-+-+-+-
Dan McFarlane (Associate Solicitor at Kellas):
Excellent article, Brian.
Fellow colleagues need to be aware of how damaging this could be to the Scottish Legal Sector. This limits many businesses from diversifying, growing and evolving their services.
-+-+-+-+-+-
Dan McFarlane (Associate Solicitor at Kellas) – In a Repost:
This is a first class analysis from Brian Inkster on The Law Society of Scotland announcement that ABS in Scotland will be off the agenda for another two years.
Fifteen years ago, Licensed Legal Service Providers were approved in Scotland. Fifteen years on, we’re told to wait another two.
This isn’t just kicking the can down the road, it is holding back the entire profession. The consequences are stark:
🔒 Firms locked out of external investment
⏳ Succession planning restricted for businesses looking to plan for the future
🚫 Growth and innovation penalised, while firms in other jurisdictions move ahead
This isn’t about a handful of firms wanting new structures. This is about the future of the Scottish legal industry.
With more dither and delay, we risk falling further behind, missing the chance to modernise, attract investment, and build sustainable businesses that can flourish in a changing world.
And it raises the obvious question: what is The Law Society of Scotland so afraid of? English firms have enjoyed this freedom for over a decade. They are not weaker for it, they are stronger.
Meanwhile, Scottish firms are denied the same opportunities, competing without a level playing field against solicitor firms in England and Wales who already benefit from these freedoms. The price of this fear is being paid not by The Law Society of Scotland but by every Scottish firm that wants to grow, invest, and plan for the future.
Fifteen years is more than enough. The profession deserves better. The future of Scottish legal services depends on it.
👉 It’s time for firms across Scotland to speak up. If we want a competitive, sustainable and modern profession, we must make our voices heard. Silence only prolongs the delay.
-+-+-+-+-+-
Sue Bence (COO | Professional Services Transformation | Buy & Build Specialist | M&A | Integration | Value Creation | Listed & PE-Backed Expertise | Solicitor):
Having been involved in the evolution of #legalservices models and #ABS for longer than my 14 year old son has been on the planet, I find it extraordinary that the #Scottish #ABS ball is being buried, yet again, preventing a level playing field for Scottish practices with England & Wales. Supposedly there is ‘only limited interest’. I suspect #futurethinking #lawyers and practices in Scotland may disagree with that statement.
-+-+-+-+-+-
Alison Hook (Co-founder and Director @ Hook Tangaza | International Trade | Regulation | Professional Services Markets | Building a better functioning legal sector):
The experience in every jurisdiction that has gone down this, or similar routes of innovation in business structures, is that things start slowly as owners understand what is involved. The same was true of the take up of LLPs in England and Wales. The decision on whether or not to introduce change should never be dictated solely by those who are already operating in the market and who may either be not particularly interested in trying something new, or actively trying to deter new entrants. Establishing hypothetical demand is never easy – Henry Ford was not wrong when he said if asked, people would ask for faster horses rather than a car.
Me:
Indeed. It is not going to happen overnight when it gets going but we do have to get it started!
-+-+-+-+-+-
Billy Smith (Owner, Director, Solicitor):
A few years ago a prominent ‘owner’ of a well known Scottish law firm asked at their conference “Are the Law Society of Scotland fit for purpose”.
We’re now more than 10 years from that question being posed, yet still the LSS fails to engage with their members choosing to regulate rather than represent.
ABS is but only one fundamental area where their representation of their members is wanting, but for as long as we in silo pay their dues their fitness, good or bad, will be what we without union allow it to be.
For me, the duty is upon the legal community in Scotland to take ownership, be accountable and take full responsibility instead of waiting in hope for an outdated organisation to lead us.
Me:
And, in this case, as well as not representing they appear, unusually, to be in no hurry to regulate (at least when it comes to ABS).
-+-+-+-+-+-
Chantal McNaught (That LegalTech Redhead | 🎙️People in Legal | Answering the question “how lawyers can navigate the conflicts between law as a profession and law as a business?”):
As my thesis centres on addressing the question “how lawyers can navigate the conflicts between law as a profession and law as a business” ABSs and liberalisation generally is a voluminous part of the literature. My two cents is that this is possibly the profession’s last ditch attempt at maintaining market control using regulated social closure by freezing ABSs out. In plain language, ABSs threaten the status quo of lawyers maintaining the management structures within the law firm businesses.
Oh and by profession I mean the Law Society! Obviously they haven’t reached out to you Brian Inkster so it would be a long bow to draw that it’s representative.
Matthew Monson (Keynote Speaker | Fraud Fighter | Litigation Integrity Advocate | Exposing Mass Tort Abuse | Legal Ethics Voice | Insurance Defense Strategist):
Chantal McNaught, you have it wrong.
ABSs threaten the status quo of lawyers being the only ones providing legal services.
ABSs offer the unique opportunity for people who aren’t trained in law or ethics to own and control law firms.
ABSs are set up for investors to skim profits from the legal field. Nothing more.
Me:
Chantal McNaught, And the key point here is that, unlike many other jurisdictions (although there is, of course, a growing number), The Scottish Parliament has enacted (15 years ago) legislation to facilitate ABS in Scotland. However, despite this, The Law Society of Scotland appears to be trying any and everything possible to prevent the will of Parliament from being fulfilled. Which is shocking.
-+-+-+-+-+-
Marie Macdonald (Chairman and Partner at Miller Samuel Hill Brown Solicitors | Employment Law Solicitor):
Thanks Brian. Very well put !
-+-+-+-+-+-
David Gilroy (I lead a marketing agency who specialise in helping law firms become more successful online. I also have a ‘passion project’ which is running Fuckup Nights in Bristol, an event aimed at helping us all learn from failure.):
I can feel a survey coming on Brian.
Me:
You might very well think that; I couldn’t possibly comment 😉
-+-+-+-+-+-
Matthew Monson, Esq. (Keynote Speaker | Fraud Fighter | Litigation Integrity Advocate | Exposing Mass Tort Abuse | Legal Ethics Voice | Insurance Defense Strategist):
Kudos to The Law Society of Scotland for keeping greedy investors out of the practice. These investors do not add anything to the equation. They merely exist to leech profits from the provision of legal services.
Dan McFarlane (Associate Solicitor at Kellas):
What nonsense. What about those of us in the profession who want to diversify?
Matthew Monson:
If you want to diversify, buy some rental properties.
By diversify, you mean sell out your profession to hedge fund vultures.
Dan McFarlane:
That’s a very generalist summary and not fair on those who want to build their businesses. What a honking attitude.
Matthew Monson:
If you want to build your business with debt, go to a bank. Or, better yet, use your profits and reinvest them in the business.
-+-+-+-+-+-
Cyrus Johnson (Attorney AI/Law Founder | TX + CA 23Y | Global Corporate Investment | Post-Scarcity Law | cyrusjohnson.com | aicounsel.substack.com | @aicounseldallas X | voxlex.ai | jurisphere.ai/us):
I’m not Scottish / USA.
Yet the law is software now.
This suggests pretended barriers which will fail.
David Gilroy (I lead a marketing agency who specialise in helping law firms become more successful online. I also have a ‘passion project’ which is running Fuckup Nights in Bristol, an event aimed at helping us all learn from failure.):
What do you mean by “the law is software now” Cyrus? I’m not sure I understand.
Cyrus Johnson:
As ever happens, law is a lagging indicator to technology.
With increase, lawyers and laypersons are accessing law through LLMs and other AI systems.
Again I am open to correction as a non Scot.
Yet this looks like a move to try to shore up a legacy model of law which is increasingly no longer the primary means for people to access Law.
