As the president, Rodger Pannone, made clear in his letter introducing the Law Society's working party's report on conveyancing, the future of domestic conv eyancing is of vital importance to the profession.

Many firms rely upon the income from conveyancing just to survive and many others, including my own, would find their incomes very significantly reduced without it.

It is for this reason that we must all try to find solutions to the problems which have been highlighted in the report.There is no doubt that the introduction of effective management systems, the development of technology and properly focused marketing campaigns are all of considerable assistance to firms in increasing both efficiency and profitability.

many firms are well advanced in implementing such systems, and they and their clients have no doubt already derived considerable benefit from them.

However, there is much more that needs to be done and I know from some of the initial responses that I have received to the working party's report that many firms are responding to this challenge.Improvements in quality of service are also badly needed.

I have again been very encouraged by the initial reaction to the working party's proposals for the establishment of a conveyancing quality mark.There can only be a long term future for the profession in conveyancing if, and only if, we meet what is a clear public demand for quality legal services at a realistic price.This will inevitably require all of us to review the manner in which we supply those services to the public.

As part of this we must consider what is perhaps the real issue at the centre of the current debate and this is to identify not only what services we supply, but perhaps even more importantly, those which we should supply to both the home-buying public and the financial institutions which now so dominate the housing market.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? It is essential that we find the correct answer to this question.

What is it that we can do that very few others in the home-buying business can do? The answer is, of course, to provide independent advice to our clients - which is at the heart of virtually every task we undertake as lawyers.

It is for this reason the working party has highlighted the crucial issue of whether or not it is right for solicitors to continue to act for both lender and borrower.The question is not whether there is a conflict between the interests of the lender and the requirements of the borrower.

There clearly is a conflict, as indeed there always is in a single commercial transaction between two parties, both of whom are seeking entirely separate benefits.

The question that more properly needs to be asked is, is it a conflict which the profession can continue to accept and which it can continue to promote, both to the institutions and to private clients?The original idea of one solicitor acting for both lender and borrower started life in earnest in the 1970s as a compromise and has probably remained so ever since.

This was a time when mortgage fraud hardly existed, there was a limited range of mortgage products on offer and competition between the financial institutions selling those products was, by today's standards, virtually non-existent.

It must have seemed very attractive to accept the advantages to be gained by the consumer in the saving of time and legal costs.The market place today is very different.

Mortgage fraud is endemic, competition between the providers of financial services is intense and the consumer is faced with a bewildering array of complex and expensi ve financial products, expensively packaged and heavily marketed.It is difficult to believe that an independent profession, dedicated to protecting the interests of its clients, can properly service the needs of separate clients who, although having a common interest in the property, have very different interests in crucial areas of the transaction.

We can no longer ignore this conflict, nor can we treat the financial implications of buying a house as something separate from the legal implications and as something with which we should not be concerned.Of course, separate representation has disadvantages, but none outweigh the advantages to each client, whatever their status, of receiving advice from a solicitor dedicated to their interests, selected by them and acting in their interests alone: a solicitor who is truly able to advise the homebuyer on all the risks of property ownership and the financial responsibilities that go with it.I am confident that a sensible and workable arrangement can be developed between those who act for the borrowers and those who act for the lenders.A common certificate of title by the borrowers' solicitors would avoid duplication of title investigation and save the raising of unnecessary requisitions.

The sending of mortgage advances, perhaps direct to the seller, could be by telegraphic transfer, rather than arriving two days before completion by cheque, which cannot be cleared properly prior to completion.

Stamping and registration would be a task performed by the lenders' solicitors and the lenders could be confident that this important part of the legal process was being carried out efficiently and with due expedition.Solicitors would of course have to assume a greater responsibility than hitherto for giving financial advice.

I believe this is something that would be welcomed by the public.

It is something that is certainly needed by the public and it is also something which the public should be entitled to expect from their independent legal adviser - in whom they are placing their complete trust for the most important financial transaction of their lives.The acceptance of a wider responsibility by the profession than just for legal technicalities is the real issue that needs to be debated.

There are very different views on the topic and I look forward to the debate.