An invitation to a partner in a small firm (four partners) practising in a provincial high street to express the view of the Law Society held 'from the sticks'.

This is what is offered in the opportunity to contribute in print to the smaller firms debate.

A chance to say the Law Society favours larger firms, City firms, is out of touch with the feelings and needs of small firms and therefore does not effectively represent those small firms which make up 82% of solicitors' practices.An occasion to complain that the Law Society's role seems to be to add regulatory and economic burdens to practitioners, intensifying the pressures of practice when it should be protecting us from not only its requirements but the requirements of accreditation and specialisation demanded by a number of agencies.This perception stems from a number of factors.

There is one professional body but the diversity of firms and professional practice is now such that in practical terms we have ceased to be one profession.

The dissimilarities between a small provincial practice and a large metropolitan firm are far easier to spot than similarities.

Competing interests and priorities arise and the resources allocated by the Law Society may not reflect the priorities of small firms.

They therefore feel neglected and remote.From the high street, the Law Society appears to have failed to protect the work that provided the main sources of income - conveyancing and legal aid work.

There is a perception that the Society has to be prodded into any defence of the many attacks on those fields of work that have happened in recent years.

When it did campaign, the complaint was that it was too gentlemanly and low profile.

Crucially, it did not achieve results.The Society is distracted by the distant horizons and the broad sweeps of policy when it should be focusing on helping firms with their day-to-day practical problems, providing effective points of reference or solutions to firms which do not have the resources to build up their own in-house expertise.

It seemed to do nothing to prevent the drift of our mainstays of work outside the profession altogether.

Whatever it is doing, we are not told about.Our morale is therefore low.

We regard ourselves as an endangered species.

We fail to respond even when specifically asked to do so because 'it won't make any difference anyway'.

Mounds of unread Gazettes and circulars still lie in their wrappers because they have nothing in them of interest to us.These perceptions are probably unrepresentative of the real situation.

The Law Society is probably far from entirely to blame.

Yet, in a situation where confidence in a professional body is crucial, the perception may be more important than the reality.

Difficult as it may be to represent such a broad spectrum of interest, the Society has to recover the confidence of small practices and persuade them that it can campaign on their behalf and allocate appropriate resources to their needs.If not, the Society will be placed by us in the ranks of those who see the only future for the legal profession as being the demise of the small high street practitioner and legal services being offered only through the medium of large, quite probably franchised, firms.Fortunately, there is a recognition that all is not well in the relationship between small firms and their professional body.

It has prompted a report to be tabled at the forthcoming AGM recognising that the situation can be improved and seeking a mandate to do so.The key is better channels of communication.

The focal point must be closer to us than Chancery Lane.

Roadshow-type functions have been well attended.

They provide opportunities for explanations and discussions which cannot be given in other settings.

They provide a forum for practitioners to meet which is not always afforded by the local law society.

That may decrease our feelings of isolation.

Where regional secretaries have been appointed, they also bring the focal point closer and have generally been regarded as a success.

They can convey messages to Chancery Lane in a form which may attract more notice there.It may be that an office-holder at Chancery Lane charged with specific responsibility for representing small firms is also a worthwhile experiment but that office-holder will have burdens enough without adding to them by the title of 'champion' which is suggested in the report.There needs to be a greater response to our need for practical help.

There is still ignorance about existing facilities, eg expert witnesses, which have led to some groups developing their own list of experts.The greatest single need is probably in the area of practice support.

The practice management standards were almost universally welcomed, providing practical help in matters where we did not have the time and expertise to develop our own, and these point the way forward.

More could be done along the same lines possibly leading to a practice support consultancy in-house, designed to become the first point of reference for small firms.The Society should develop a public relations profile which is more acceptable to provincial firms.

These firms complain that not enough is being done to improve public perception of our worth and to respond to bad publicity.

Again, communication will be vital but at least we might know why at times negotiating in public is not the most effective tactic.Finally, our tolerance of the policing role will increase by showing that the increased burden of regulation does produce tangible results.

When the cost of default and indemnity premiums starts to fall there will be a greater readiness to recognise that increased self-regulation is worthwhile and effective.Impress us out of our apathy.

Aim for a situation where we read our Gazette eager to discover what the Society is doing for us, where we can next respond to criticise or applaud and when the next article featuring a voice from the high street is to appear.