The recent announcement of ­automatic admission for CQS firms to the HSBC panel is a welcome return to normality. Perhaps not quite ‘as you were’, but a major step towards recognition that the best interests of our clients and their borrowers are served by a ­diversity of choice within the ­framework of a quality mark.

The new HSBC system will have three tiers. The first comprises the favoured few, ‘the 43’, who have signed up to the discounted fees, the structure overseen by Countrywide, including a no-sale, no-fee deal and various other bells and whistles.

The second tier comprises all firms within the CQS where joint representation will be allowed by the bank. Sole practitioners will be subject to some limitations, but the Law Society is continuing discussions on that point which it hopes to address satisfactorily in due course.

Non-CQS firms will comprise the third tier and will suffer the indignity of not being allowed to act for both. But with Santander and Nationwide requiring CQS membership for new members and Clydesdale and Yorkshire banks mandating it, HSBC is back in the game once more.

What caused this change of heart? Perhaps a Damascene moment, the light shining from above? We may not know precisely, but the campaign led by the Law Society was certainly instrumental. The ability of solicitors to coordinate action has been remarkable. Press packs issued by Chancery Lane, with MPs’ briefings, hit the target. The ripple spread, reaching consumer organisations and Fleet Street alike. When Which?, the consumers association, is on your side, you know the wind is in your sails.

The esteem in which banks are held was perhaps influential. Few, these days, were going to start off on the side of a financial behemoth. The argument still had to be won. How? Not by protesting that it was hurting us, but by expressing the disadvantage suffered by our clients. The HSBC borrower was clearly becoming a pariah. I have spoken to many people on the subject in the last few months, whether in the industry or not, and few were unaware of the problem even if they did not know its precise detail.

Cash and profit are the driving forces for any successful business. Selling product, in this case ­mortgages, is at the centre of ­motivation for HSBC. As the difficulty became clear for all to see, simple financials ­probably provided the tipping point. The restrictive panel idea was broke, so the bank has fixed it, and not a moment too soon.

However, solicitors must not rest on their laurels. Some may call this a victory but to do so is a mistake. This is but one wave in an ocean of challenges. The recent decision by Nationwide to embark on a data collection ­exercise will cause concern. Like the constable asking you where you have been and where you are going, the ­climate of fear generated by lenders’ seemingly arbitrary decisions leads us to be wary of why they want to know. Subjectively, giving the lender confirmation of basic business structure should not be problematic, but we are all nervous of the use to which the information is put. Which arbitrary ­criterion is next when the axe falls on your instructions from a lender?

Despite this scepticism we must rise above it. Solicitors wishing to be instructed by the bank have to show that they can line up to the high expectations rightly required by their clients, and that includes the lender client. There must be an acceptance that we have no absolute right to require instructions from any client. Instead of concern for our immediate problems (pressing though they are), understanding that there are ­difficulties will go some distance to helping us as a profession locate and embrace solutions.

While we have centres of excellence, the fight to improve standards across our market must continue. The ability to convey property and provide ­security for lenders in a timely and cost-effective manner is the hallmark of good practice. This is perhaps a statement of the obvious, but it is a constant reminder that we all have to learn, improve and adapt to ever-changing markets, and the law must be embedded into our thinking.

Will the insistence on CQS for panel membership result in an increase in applications to the scheme? Perhaps, but some may be irritated by the need to apply. My answer is simply that we must open our eyes to reality. The world has changed and continues to change. High standards of due diligence and practice are required. The longevity and size of a practice are not a good enough guarantee for the future. Perhaps, at its starkest, doubters will need to answer the question: why would you not want to join a scheme which enables you to demonstrate excellence with probity?

The CQS statistics continue to impress the market. Some of the major players had given only qualified support, expressing scepticism that membership would ever get to an acceptable level. Now, with over 2,250 outlets across England and Wales (accredited firms and their branch offices) the argument is rebutted. The naysayers reckoned that firms would not re-accredit for the second year, but this is far from the case. The figures show that renewal forms are coming in thick and fast. This strong base gives the Law Society credible evidence that the ‘trusted community’, a foundation stone of the concept, has arrived.

Many firms are relatively new to the scheme. My sense is that the protocol and standard conditions are now truly embedded into the system. A few are struggling to get to grips with the change to their procedures. It is all too easy to protest ‘we at X & Co have always done it like this’. The sentiment misses the point. Collective action, to standardise those parts of the transaction which should be common, strengthens our position as a profession. Fragmented, it allows the critics to gain ground.

I have written previously that scheme enforcement is better as ­carrot not stick, but members must expect that the Law Society will enforce the rules. Recalcitrant ­members must justify their position or will need to leave the scheme. There is a greater good, so well demonstrated by persuading HSBC to adopt the scheme. Those who seek to detract from it cannot expect continued support.

So, for now, a little light relief - we live to fight another day and can be proud of the achievement. We are grateful to HSBC for having the good grace to accept the arguments put forward.

Jonathan Smithers is chair of the Law Society’s ­conveyancing and land law committee