Welcome to the second issue of the new-look Journal. I am grateful to those of you who took the trouble to comment on the first one – not that many, which I hope is a sign that it made a favourable impression with most readers.
There was a fair range of comments as to whether the magazine feels more, or less, substantial than expected of the new format. To those who would say “less”, I invite you to look at the likes of Newsweek or The Economist as they now appear, and check the number of pages in what at first sight are very slim publications. The more relevant question is, once you access the content – remembering that there is quite a bit extra online now – are you getting a worthwhile read?
Inevitably, there were a few grumbles. We will be fine tuning the presentation in the light of experience, though the basic structure will remain. As for content, the aim of the Journal remains the same, to provide a range of current information and advice on law and legal practice across the broad sweep of our profession. We intend neither a small firm nor a big firm bias, though from issue to issue the balance may vary.
On that subject, it is noteworthy that some assumptions about what actually constitute “small firm” or “big firm” issues may need to be rethought. It was sometimes said during last year’s arguments over the ABS reforms that they were only happening so that partners in large firms could cash in. But interviews in these pages in successive months with two executives of leading commercial firms have revealed their predictions that the impact, initially at least, could be felt more on the high street – they themselves are not in a rush to attract outside capital. Perhaps smaller firms are realising this, as the item in the Perspectives section on the Connect2Law conference may indicate.
Certainly it is an issue to which all firms should be actively considering their response, whether or not that means a change of direction, and we also bring you an update from the Society on work to put the necessary framework in place, and what can be done by members at present.
And I hope that all readers, in whatever sector, will find something of interest in Richard Burcher’s views (cover feature) on value pricing. We are fortunate to be able to obtain such perspectives from, in effect, a global standpoint. I wish you good reading.Peter Nicholson, Editor
Follow the Journal on Twitter at twitter.com/jlsed