Have you voted yet? No, not the presidential election - too late for that.

There is another, less publicised, but highly important vote going on that could have far-reaching consequences for all general practitioners.

refer to the Law Society's coyly named 'Consultation on family law accreditation'.

Behind this gentle title is a controversial policy to extend the policy of specialist panels to one of the largest areas of general practitioners' work.

The word 'panel' raises serious dissatisfaction among sections of the profession.

Hence, the subtle name-change to 'accreditation scheme'.

But a panel it is.

Panels are not primarily about increasing the amount of work done by the profession as a whole.

They are about redistributing it.

This means taking the work away from some of those who do it now (the generalists) and giving it to others (the specialists).

If you are already a specialist, a new panel may be good news for you.

Although it will mean more form filling and subscriptions (estimated at approximately £300), it may give you a marketing advantage over your more generalist competition.

If you are a generalist, however, a panel may be seriously bad news.

At first you will be told that being a generalist does not matter and that you can still do the work, even if you are not on the panel.

In practice this bec omes increasingly difficult - as those excluded from the personal injury panel have found.

Once a panel is set up, those who have jumped through the various hoops to get on are keen to see some reward for doing so.

Advertising schemes are likely to be exclusively for panel members (such as the Accident Line scheme), as is any new scheme (such as the 'no win - no fee' insurance scheme - now an important part of personal injury practice).

The work starts to seep away from the non-panellist to the panel member - which, after all, is the whole point.

We are told that specialisation is the future.

To stand against it is to be out of date.

But is it? And to what extent should the Law Society be promoting it? The Society's consultation paper outlines the arguments for and against the accreditation scheme.

I highlight one point, however, which could be misleading if not read carefully.

On page two, one of the two arguments in favour of the scheme is headed 'An alternative to legal aid franchising'.

Read this paragraph carefully.

Despite the heading, there is absolutely no indication from the government or the Legal Aid Board that panel membership would be accepted as an alternative to franchising.

This consultation is the closest that you are likely to get to a vote on the setting up of a family law panel.

Those voting for and against will be added up.

A favourable response to the consultation could make the family law panel unstoppable.

You do not have to be a family practitioner to turn the questionnaire and you certainly do not have to be a specialist.

A copy of the consultation has been sent to every firm practising family law.

If you have not seen it, it may still be sitting on your senior partner's floor.

A copy was also published in the Gazette (see 1996], 15 May, 34, 35, 36).

Responses must be in by 31 July.