What is the test for applying the new Law Society Guidelines in a personal injury case?

I do not mean to suggest by these comments that a balanced approach assessing the various factors outlined in rule 2.05(4) is not appropriate in cases such as this. I am simply suggesting that those factors are themselves reflective of the principles enunciated in Martin v. Gray. Generally speaking, those who, in good faith, comply substantially with the new Law Society Guidelines can expect to withstand judicial scrutiny, although in terms of ethical walls the law is clear that such mechanisms must be effectively put in place at the time the potential conflict first arises. The "interests of justice" balancing approach articulated in rule 2.05(4) is, in my view, just another way of arriving at an appropriate equilibrium amongst those principles.