Would dividing the Law Society into two separate bodies, like the British Medical Association (BMA) and the General Medical Council (GMC), provide a long-term answer to the Law Society's current problems, as well as advancing the cause of the profession? A recent editorial in the Solicitors Journal says it would.

The British Legal Association agrees.

I disagree but I also accept that we are in a mess.President Martin Mears and Vice-President Robert Sayer want the Society to use its regulatory powers to protect the profession's interests.

If they were the leaders of a representative body like the BMA, neither they, nor their Council, would have powers to change anything.

Ethical standards, rules of practice, education and training requirements, would all be laid down, possibly by a legal council (as advocated by the National Consumer Council) in which solicitors would be in the minority.However, solicitors would be responsible for meeting the bill.

The GMC currently spends around £15 million, a sum which is likely to rise as it acquires some of the inadequate professional service powers which the Law Society has over the profession.

The BMA has gross expenditure of about £45 million, roughly the same as the Law Society, but none of this expenditure relates to the exercise of statutory functions.

The BMA's president, who serves for a year, is drawn from the profession, but may not have been active in the BMA.

The political leader, the chairman of the council, is elected by the council for three years.

Perhaps those are ideas the Law Society should copy.

The BMA also compensates the employers of its Council members.

Nearly 20 were helped in this way in 1994 by the payment of £142,000.BMA members have more reason to believe that their association helps them rather than regulates them.

However, their leaders worry about their relative lack of control over events.

A conference in 1994, chaired by Sir Morris Shock, examined the future of the medical profession.

One of the main conclusions reached was that there was a need for the various interests to be more united in what they did.A similar fate could await the lawyers.

The Courts and Legal Services Act 1990 allows for other legal bodies to be formed to do most of the work of the Law Society.

Large commercial firms, tired of paying for the complaints system, contributing to the compensation fund from which neither they nor their clients benefit, as well as paying what they might regard as an unfair contribution to the Solicitors Indemnity Fund, might decide to form their own regulatory organisation.

Some of the specialist associations might, in the long term, aspire to such a role.

Franchise-holders might be ready now to do the same.

All could be tempted to do so if they saw the Law Society as a last-ditch defender of restrictive practices, unable to lead its members to accept change, and which was unable to convince politicians, media and the public alike that it was a responsible guardian of the public interest.

This could lead to a fragmentation which the profession as a whole would come to regret.Holding these different interests together is part of the reason why the Law Society faces a crisis.

The greatest turmoil has been within the profession as it comes to grips with some very uncomfortable realities.

The Law Society has been seen to be out of touch with an increasingly desperate membership.

The election of a President and Vice-President who, constitutionally, have no power is possibly a waste of resources.

Perhaps the profession will be asked whether the Council should be abolished and all the Society's functions conferred on the President and Vice-President.

However, it is doubtful whether the Privy Council would approve such a change.None of these problems would be resolved by splitting the organisation into two bodies, paid for by the profession and spending much of their time lobbying each other.

My personal blueprint for reform would involve:-- A Council made up of 30 members of the profession, all directly elected.

They would be joined by five lay-persons able to articulate the wider public interest.-- The Council would meet only four to six times a year and would approve changes to the practice rules, agree overall strategy and have the last word on budgets.-- The Council would be presided over by a President, appointed by the Council but not necessarily from its own membership.-- There would be a policy board of nine members whose chairman would be elected by the Council and serve for three years.

All members of the board would be remunerated.-- There could be three separate organisations at member level whose chairmen would be Council members on the policy board.

The three organisations could be: the representative body (which would include members services); the learned society (eg law reform); the regulatory and compliance organisation.-- The profession would be invited to become members of the first two bodies and make their own arrangements to fill most of the committee membership.

(This could be a direct election.)-- The representative body and the learned society would receive most of their funding from the practising certificate but would be free to raise separate membership subscriptions and indulge in commercial activities.-- It would be an essential feature of these new arrangements that many of the activities would be carried out regionally.This is neither a complete nor an original blueprint.

Its aim is to learn from the experience of others, providing greater opportunity for dedicated members of the profession, who have no interest in Law Society politics, to play a part at national and regional level.

Having a governing body with a lay element could, if properly used, stave off future attempts to deprive the Law Society of its regulatory powers.

The governing body, whose work could be shared with the new organisations, would need to meet less frequently, and could be assisted by having a small, properly compensated policy board dealing with all but the most important issues which would have to be decided by the Council.The BMA conference acknowledged that neither the association nor its members had shown sufficient willingness to change to meet changing circumstances and public expectations.

A reformed Law Society, embracing both representative and regulatory roles, but giving its members more say, could learn from these lessons.

If it does not, then I fear for the profession.