It was put to me last week that many solicitors do not realise that the Law Society's Council has 14 non-constituency members appointed by the Council; that is to say, not directly elected by the profession.They represent a number of different interests and specialisations which, it is felt, are important, and would not necessarily find adequate or any representation amongst the 61 constituency members.These special interests range from commerce and industry (two members) through practice specialisations such as international practice, EU matters, insurance and financial services to important special interest groups such as ethnic minorities and sole practitioners.Perhaps the most glaring omission is that there is no member representing women's interests to redress in part the paucity of women amongst the constituency members.The Vice-President as reported in last weeks' issue (see [1995] Gazette, 22 November, 56), is to put before the December Council meeting a proposal to abolish the nomination procedure for these seats.Under the proposed replacement system, each solicitor would vote for a special interest group from a short list of about 20, the 14 most popular being eligible for representation on the Council.

Each member would then be able to vote for a special interest group representative as well as a constituency member.

Those who voted for an unsuccessful group would be able to vote for a representative from one successful group.Is this the way forward? Certainly the role or purpose of the 14 non-constituency seats should be examined and, probably, the system reforme d.

However, this proposal has the appearance of 'revolution on the hoof'.For some time a good deal of work has been in progress on the question of sectional representation.

Specialist practice areas are assuming an ever greater importance and a degree of re-organisation of the profession is necessary to reflect this.If the process is to work it must be properly thought out and organised with adequate support from the profession's civil service.

Reform should be from the bottom up with sectional representation to the Council being only part of the process.

Otherwise the specialist Council member will be without adequate organisational support.Some of the tasks the presidential team is tackling must be dealt with urgently, none more so than the burning issue of low conveyancing fees.

Other matters -- and sectional representation is one of them -- are important but less urgent.

I suggest that this will be solved more effectively by carefully researched and planned reorganisation over a reasonable period.The result should be that members find their interests better represented.

This could partly redress the feeling of alienation of the profession's members from its governing body which played so large a part in the recent elections.

Unlike conveyancing fees, however, this has no immediate effect on the survival of practices.To the probable delight of the press there is a damaging, and in my view, false perception that the presidential team must force through all its measures against a largely hostile establishment.Certainly there are differences about when, how and what reform should take place.

Contrasting emphases may be placed on revolutionary and evolutionary reform -- surely the issue of sectional representation is better served by the latter.My experience is that the Council members and others who work so hard for the profession do so in what they believe are its best interests.

There should be no need for political parties in Chancery Lane.