The Competition and Markets Authority (CMA) has once again exposed a market failing its consumers. This time, it is the veterinary sector. In its October 2025 provisional decision, the CMA found “significant and widespread problems” including opaque pricing, limited transparency and poor access to information that prevents pet owners from making informed choices. For those of us monitoring legal services, the parallels are deeply troubling and long overdue for resolution.
Nine years after the CMA’s original review of legal services, the sector remains fundamentally misaligned with consumer interests. The same symptoms persist; weak competition, fragmented regulation and an information deficit that undermines consumer engagement. The CMA’s 2016 and 2020 recommendations were clear and urgent. Yet implementation has been partial, delayed, and in some cases, derailed.
Price transparency remains elusive. While some progress has been made in transactional areas like conveyancing, recent research by Big Yellow Penguin reveals a 150% price disparity for essentially identical services in conveyancing, highlighting the need for effective comparable pricing that goes beyond basic transparency. And in more complex legal matters, consumers still lack upfront clarity on costs, scope and quality, making informed choice nearly impossible.
One of the CMA’s cornerstone recommendations was the creation of a centralised digital resource to help consumers navigate the fragmented regulatory landscape. That vision became the Regulatory Information Service (RIS), delegated to the Solicitors Regulation Authority (SRA). Despite the SRA’s commitment and energetic delivery efforts, consumer testing shows that the RIS will not meet expectations around accessible and assessable quality indicators. Without these, the tool risks being ineffective for real-world decision-making.
The Panel has engaged extensively with the SRA and recognises their efforts to deliver within the scope specified by the Legal Services Board (LSB). But it is the scope and governance of this project that is in question. The LSB’s decision to delegate a market-wide initiative reflects a deeper governance flaw. We have long argued that only a centrally led, LSB-driven solution, can deliver the consistency, independence and consumer focus this tool demands.
Meanwhile, the Consumer Empowerment Policy Statement has yielded no tangible progress on quality metrics despite many offers of help. The CMA’s 2020 follow-up was unequivocal; “more information on quality” is still needed. Yet today, consumers remain reliant on price and/or reputation. These can be misleading proxies that entrench inequality and erode trust.
The CMA’s veterinary sector findings have prompted swift calls for reform, including proposals for mandatory price disclosures and clearer ownership structures. Legal services must not lag. The Panel urges the Legal Services Board to take decisive action:
- Reassert leadership: Publicly recommit to full implementation of the CMA’s recommendations;
- Re-focus the RIS: The SRA has delivered a first iteration service to be launched this winter, but the LSB must re-assume direct control to ensure future versions meet consumer needs;
- Mandate quality metrics: Develop and enforce differentiating quality indicators that are visible, usable and meaningful;
- Extend transparency: Apply price transparency across all areas of law, not just simple transactions.
Incrementalism is no longer sufficient. The legal services market must become truly transparent, competitive and worthy of public trust. The CMA’s veterinary findings are a timely reminder; when markets fail consumers, regulators must act, not just acknowledge the failings.
Tom Hayhoe, LSCP Chair