Finally the dust is settling over at least the inquiry into the Kamlesh Bahl saga.

At the beginning, I took a conscious decision to make no public comment and I inte nd to stick by that.

Those solicitors who have read the Griffiths report can form their own conclusions.

Those who have not read it should do so.

Its message could not be clearer.Now let's move on.

The process of modernising the Law Society has been put on the backburner because of the events of the last few months.

The silver lining to the affair is that there does, at last, seem to be a growing realisation within the Law Society that time is running out.

The patience of its members is wearing thin.

Solicitors are telling the Society to become relevant or go away.So what must the Society do to become relevant? The answer is not complicated.

It has to understand what its roles are and carry them out competently.

I use the plural, roles, deliberately.

The Society has more than one.

It regulates us, represents us and provides us with services -- three distinct jobs.

The problem has always been in getting the balance right between them, and it has been the differences of opinion about that which have been at the heart of much of the angst of the last few years.Up to now, regulation has been overwhelmingly dominant, and the reason for that is understandable.

For years, all the external pressures on the Society -- from the government, the Legal Services Ombudsman, the press and others -- have concentrated on that aspect.

As a result, the Society lost its confidence.

It over-compensated and over-regulated, and lost sight of the core purpose of complaints handling, which is to quickly and firmly prevent the rare rogue solicitor from continuing to practise.The Society also allowed the Solicitors Complaints Bureau, and its successor the Office for the Supervision of Solicitors (OSS), to become dominated by process instead of outcome, and as a result it alienated too many ordinary solicitors.

Too much of the Society's efforts and resources ended up in regulation and complaints handling and too little was left for the other key functions, representation and services.

The result has been a steadily growing disenchantment with the Society by its members.

It is irrelevant.

Solicitors ask: what does it do for me? Nothing, is the response of many of them.As one of the Society's long-term critics, let me say that such a typical view is understandable, but a little unfair.

The perception lags behind the reality.

The last five years have brought about a change.

The services now provided for members have improved tremendously.

Real, practical advice is provided to an increasing number of solicitors from the Society itself and from the Practice Management Section.

Training in a massive range of subjects is now provided at a reasonable cost.

Help on computerisation is increasingly available.

Over the last nine months, the OSS has made tremendous strides.

And representation has improved, albeit nowhere near enough.

Those who say the Society does nothing are wrong.

But if they were to say it does too little, sadly, they would still be right.

A lot more needs to be done.

Back to the silver lining.I sense that the events of the last few months have brought into focus the disenchantment that exists to a dangerous level.

The Society is at a crossroads.

It knows it has to modernise, and an increasing number of senior staff and Council members have openly accepted this.

But too many others are still dragging their feet.

Change is painful and a lot of people are frightened of it, which is natural.

Over the last five years, I have recognised that fear of change existed and have been patient.

I have pushed the organisation gently in the right direction ev en though the pace has been frustrating.

A successful business has to be able to move swiftly -- decide what you want and go for it.

If you achieve 60% or 70% and learn from what did not work, you will prosper.

Do nothing unless you are sure it is 100% achievable, and you will fail by default.

But the time for patience is running out.So what needs to be done? The Society has to start acting like a modern business.

It has to acknowledge publicly that each of its three core functions -- regulation, representation and services -- are of equal importance.

It must then restructure itself so that it can deliver on each of these functions.It has been argued that this would require a split similar to that which exists between the General Medical Council and the British Medical Association.

but that would be a mistake, an over-complication.

Regulation, representation and services to members are interrelated.

They should be carried out by clear and distinctly separate divisions within the Law Society with sufficient independence for each to work, each properly resourced and with the parent body, the Law Society, providing the co-ordination needed to prevent conflicts and clashes.

Whether the Society has the will to restructure quickly enough is the question.

It was my doubt about its governing body, the Council, having that will which prompted my proposal a few weeks ago that the Council should be completely re-constituted.Like any other business, we need the brightest and the best in the profession on our board of directors, our Council.

How we achieve that is open to debate.

A smaller more efficient Council? One representing specialisations or geographical areas? Perhaps a mixture based on a dozen regions? To some extent, the 'how' is almost irrelevant.

The over-riding question is whether or not the will to change exists.

I am beginning to think it does.

My fear is it may not happen quickly enough.