One of the most apparent aspects of conveyancing today is the lack of risk, at least from the point of view of the public, who rarely hear of people being put out of their homes or being left penniless because of a conveyancing problem.

Even when such difficulties arise, it is well known that the Law Society's complaints and compensation systems will protect innocent clients.And, where there is (perceived) low risk, 'quality' is not a major selling point.

Clients expect that 'quality' will automatically be delivered and as such it has no special value.Yet, the first of the two proposals put forward in the Law Society's working party report, 'Adapting for the future', is a conveyancing quality mark which 'would enable those who provide a quality service to distinguish themselves from those working to a lower standard'.A quality mark does not mean that the service is in any way superior to those that do not carry such a mark, merely that the supplier obtained prior confirmation that the service meets certain standards.Solicitors are already required to provide an 'adequate professional service' and, if they do not, they will be dealt with by the Law Society and the public will be protected.

That at least, we can deduce, is the public's vision and it is an important and valuable vision, which must not be discarded lightly.But the introduction of a quality mark could be counter-productive.

The public might consider that those firms with such a mark offer a premier service, assumed to be at high cost, while all other firms provide a 'safe' level of service at a price offering 'value for money'.The second proposal centres on the working party's perception of a conflict of interest between mortgage providers and borrowers.

It suggests that each should be separately represented in the future.

Yet the tone of the proposal suggests that solicitors' interests in such a change are just as important as any potential improvement in service for clients, institutional or private.The public perception will be of lawyers making work for themselves while even well-informed clients will see only increased costs and inconvenience designed to cope with minimal risks.The report identifies the concerns of lenders, who believe that many solicitors fail to treat them as clients requiring protection equal to the borrowing clients.

Note that the lender seeks 'equal' protection, not different.

The report also states that 'it is clear that lenders are looking for more from their solicitor', but nothing more is offered by the proposal to deny joint representation.The case of Mortgage Express Ltd v Bowerman & Partners [1994] The Times, 19 May (see also [1994] Gazette, 25 May, 7), clearly illustrates the real need of lenders; namely, that their solicitors should identify and address their legitimate business interests.In the case, the solicitor, at Bowerman & Partners, told the purchaser of the dramatic increase in the price of the property over two very recent sales and clearly saw the i nterest that the purchaser would have in that information, yet failed to see that the lender would have a similar, legitimate interest.There was, however, no conflict of interest; rather there were identical interests in each being given information relevant to the transaction.It is possible, but by no means certain, that each might have had different views as to the effect of the new knowledge on their respective desires to proceed with the transaction as originally planned and, in that event and at that time, each would have needed to obtain independent advice.If the report's two proposals are inappropriate, how then should we address the very real problems of inadequate profitability and unrealistic price competition in conveyancing, which are now facing the profession?It is essential that the issues are examined from the point of view of clients, not solicitors.

Although the working party has so far failed to do this, its chairman, Paul Marsh, in [1994] Gazette, 4 May, 12, asks the correct questions when he says: 'What do clients, both private and institutional, require and need from us? What is our role as advisers in the home-buying market and what should it be into the next century?'There are two steps that should be taken to help provide the answers.

First, the Law Society's research and policy planning unit should undertake a fresh research project to identify the fears, concerns, wishes and needs of home buyers, sellers and mortgage lenders - not about conveyancing but in terms of house buying, selling and lending transactions and the clients' experiences as a whole, to which the technical conveyancing contributes but a part.Secondly, members of the working party should place themselves in the position of clients and match the expertise and capabilities of the profession to the issues identified by the research.Using representatives of all the interested client groups to assist in achieving client perspectives, the working party can start to design services which would address client needs (rather than the profession's needs) and to specify the legal skills which would contribute to those services.

At the end of the day, this could result in radical changes which would directly benefit both clients and the profession.