The Law Society's Council has resolved to examine once again the very controversial area of specialist accreditation.

The last time the Council grappled with the issue was in 1991, when it decided against developing specialist panels with the exception of ones for personal injury and medical negligence practitioners -- the development of which was considered justified in the public interest.

Several factors have forced the issue of specialist accreditation back on to the Council's main agenda.

Foremost among these is the development of legal aid franchising and the perception that the Law Society should be the main architect of quality standards imposed on franchisees.

Allied to this is the possibility that membership of Law Society accreditation schemes would facilitate acquisition of a franchise or even serve as a substitute for practitioners anxious to be in the running for block contracts.Another driving factor is demand from various interest groups.

The Legal Aid Practitioners Group favours the establishment of accreditation schemes for the main areas of legal aid work and the Solicitors Family Law Association has long called for an accreditation scheme for family work.

Yet another factor is the need, widely felt within and without the profession, for some easy way for the public to identify practitioners with expertise in particular areas of work.

It was against this background that the Council last week tackled the issue of accreditation afresh.

Lending the debate particular focus was the issue of whether to go ahead with an accreditation scheme for family law practitioners.

The results of a recent consultation conducted by the Society showed significant but not overwhelming support for such a scheme.

In the first place, the response rate was low: only 1000 of the 6000 circulated put in a response.

Individual practitioners came down in favour of a scheme by a majority of just over 2:1 but local law societies responding collectively, were evenly divided.The complexity of the issue of accreditation and its potential for causing divisions within the profession became more obvious as the debate ensued.

For every member who argued persuasively in favour of accreditation schemes, there were those who thought they were unnecessarily elitist.

There were those who were quite prepared to countenance the development of specialist 'sections', which were seen to be inclusive, but balked at panels, which were seen to be essentially exclusive.

The debate was merely an opening shot and the Council is set to consider a much fuller review of the issue early in the new year.

A clear policy in this area is imperative given the pressures building up inside and outside the profession.