The panel consisted of report author Esther Roberton; Scottish Legal Complaints Commission chief executive Neil Stevenson; former Law Society of Scotland president Christine McLintock; and Roddy Dunlop QC. It was moderated by Professor Donald Nicolson OBE.

Ms Roberton opened the debate by reassuring attendees that she was given the freedom to carry out her review free of any “red lines” and described the current regulatory framework as “heavy handed and complex”.

She took the view that Scotland’s legal sector is not “thriving”, citing as evidence of this the fact there are 400 advocates in Scotland and said there is no need for five regulators in a jurisdiction with roughly 12,000 professionals.

Mr Stevenson said that Scots lawyers have the most complicated, convoluted professional complaints process system in the world and that it needs to be simplified.

He endorsed the primary finding of the Roberton Review, despite this entailing the abolition of the SLCC.

Ms McLintock pointed to consumer satisfaction with the Law Society and the fact the new plans have not been costed.

Mr Dunlop reiterated the point on costs and noted that whatever it costs, we can be sure it will be more than at present as far as Faculty regulation is concerned – as this costs nothing. 

He also pointed out the irrelevancy of the argument that five regulators are not needed for Scotland’s population.

The QC asked where the lack of independence lies in a system which uses a majority of lay people and a senator in its disciplinary panels and noted Faculty regulation has sufficed for almost 500 years.

There was a consensus, however, that lawyers must make their voices on the Roberton Review heard.

Solicitor Brian Inkster posted a full summary of the debate on the Time Blawg.