ANTHONY BOGAN: SUPPORT DEBATEThis week solicitors will receive more voting papers from the Law Society.

A resolution on the issue of seeking a formal separation of the Society's regulatory and representative functions garnered sufficient support at the AGM in July.

Should there be a separation? If so, what form should it take? The resolution is only persuasive and, therefore, not binding on the Council.

The proposers hope that a sufficient show of support for the principle of separation will encourage the Law Society to take stock and consider the issue properly.The issue is one of confidence.

The public must have confidence in the ability of the Society to discharge its statutory regulatory duties, and solicitors need to feel that the Society can and will pursue their special interests when the need arises.

Often the perception is as important as the reality and confidence on both sides is at a low ebb.The principle of separation seems logical and progressive.

Other professions incorporate it within their governing structures and maintain the advantages of self-regulation.

Some of the Law Society's objections to separation may not stand.

For example, it has been suggested that we would precipitate government intervention and possibly external regulation.

Why? Surely it is also likely that self-regulation will be taken away if the weight of public opinion continues to undermine our disciplinary procedures and to accuse those we entrust to police our affairs of impartiality.Would external regulation be such a bad thing? Sometimes it is difficult to imagine a tougher regulatory regime than that which we impose on ourselves.

Licensed conveyancers and financial advisers are regulated by statute and appear to be able to operate within a more liberal regulatory regime than our own.The Law Society maintains that it has more credibility when it negotiates wearing both regulatory and representative hats.

Where is the authority for such an assumption? Of course, it has had successes -- and some failures.

Would the outcome have been any different had it spoken only as a representative body? The answer, surely, is that nobody really knows.

What we do know is that organisations like the British Medical Association or the American Bar Association (ABA) -- both of which have no regulatory responsibility whatsoever -- are respected and influential.To some, the Law Society is seen an an irrelevance.

What about the City and commercial firms? According to recent press, the Law Society is worried that many in the City would welcome separation -- particularly if it meant that City firms no longer had to finance the Society's non-regulatory functions.

Perhaps a representative body arranged on a sectional basis along the lines of the ABA would better suit their needs.A positive vote for the motion cannot bind the Council to any particular course of action.

But a 'yes' will demonstrate that the profession expects its elected representatives to give the issue of separation the time and the resources for proper debate.

No more, but no less.PRESIDENT TONY GIRLING: SUPPORT SELF-REGULATIONThis motion asks the profession, in effect, to surrender its right to govern itself.

The Council of the Law Society strongly opposes this motion, and urges all solicitors to vote against it.The choice for the profession is simple.

Self-regulation within a framework laid down by Parliament or state regulation by government quango.At present, the Law Society can be a powerful champion of the profession, protecting the interests of both solicitors and their clients.

Regulation is kept to the minimum necessary to safeguard clients' interests.

The Society is directly accountable to the profession for everything it does, including the way in which it carries out its statutory functions.-- A surrender to government control: a vote in favour of the motion will send a clear message to the government that the profession wants to give up its responsibility for client protection so that it can pursue more easily a narrow 'trade union' approach to representation.

Such a clear signal would be an open invitation to the government to step in and impose regulation through a government quango, which would not be accountable to the profession.

There would be no incentive for such a regulator to minimise regulation.

Solicitors would also have no control over the cost of regulation but would still have to pay for it.

The effectiveness of a separate regulator would be judged by how aggressively it pursued the role of consumer watchdog not by the quality of its communication with the profession.

Indeed, ongoing public conflict with the solicitors' representative body would be seen by many as evidence of success.-- A weaker voice for the profession: a body having a representative function only would be a dangerously weak champion of the profession.

It would have little credibility, being seen only as the self-serving voice of a sectional interest group.

What happens when professions act purely as trade unions can be seen with the teachers' organisations.

Since deciding to go down the trade union route they have suffered a serious loss of influence.

It is understood that the Privy Council is not likely to allow funds raised by the Society to be diverted to a body established to promote a sectional interest.A separate representative body would have to rely on voluntary contributions from its members.

The experience of the American Bar Association suggests that as few as one third of solicitors might subscribe.A stand-alone representative body -- supported financially by only a minority of the profession and regarded by outsiders as just a trade union -- would not adequately represent the whole profession.

Fragmentation would be the inevitable outcome.