The Solicitors Regulation Authority is consulting upon relaxing the rules on conflicts of interest for solicitors (see [2010] Gazette, 21 January).

A learned lecturer at the College of Law used to say that Victorian judges did not often make mistakes about the interpretation of contract law. In other words, that which was handed down to us by our forefathers, was, in some cases, well thought out and sound.

The value of a solicitor to society is that he has professional integrity and independence, no matter how lucrative the work or how powerful the client. The rule against conflicts of interest protects the public and solicitors alike. It protects the insurers of both.

We live in an age where the inability of bankers to understand that their function in society is to borrow money from its depositors at 10p on the pound and sell money to its borrowers at 14p has led the world to the brink of catastrophe. We all have to pay to clean up the mess.

Are we so very arrogant as a generation that, in the wake of the referral fees mess, and the personal injury funding quagmire, we think that we can safely rewrite the fundamental rules which make us either valuable or necessary to society?

Some areas of the law benefit from deregulation. Assured shorthold tenancies are a case in point. Industry and workers alike could benefit from the introduction of the American system of hire and fire in employment contracts. We would benefit from an insolvency law that wasn't an indulgence for thieves.

Some rules are not meant to be broken. In our case, these are rules that separate us from being pure mercenaries or hirelings.

The courts will not see a conflict of interest as a permissible or beneficial thing, however we change our rules. It would be nice if we didn’t have to rely upon judges to ensure our own self respect. They think little enough of us already, and for the first time in my career I am beginning to agree with them.

Andrew Cohen, Woking