The solicitors' profession is in a crisis.

A combination of forces operating over the last decade has taken its toll, viz: a government committed to market economics; unrestrained consumerism; unrestricted price competition; increased regulation for the liberal professions; and a marked change in the financial services industry.The result, during a deep recession, has been to bring many small firms which service the public to the very edge of collapse.

Last summer many solicitors thought that the 'messiah' had arrived in the shape of Martin Mears and Robert Sa yer.

Along with conveyancing campaigner John Edge, they were seen as a catalyst for much needed reform.In fact, since last July's elections, the Law Society has been in turmoil and scarcely a week has gone by without the solicitors' governing body appearing unceremoniously in the public eye.

Supporters of the reform movement have looked on from the sidelines with dismay.

And yet, the old order has been challenged.

It has been found wanting.

Few would now argue against the need for root and branch reform in Chancery Lane.The Council itself continues to develop David Thomas' reform package.

When it met in February, the Council member for Dorset, Peter Watson-Lee, urged the Council to bridge the gap between the profession and its professional body.

He advocated greater emphasis on the Society's representative role.

During that debate, two respected Past Presidents referred again and again to a 'fundamental restraint' on the Council's ability fully to discharge a trade union role.The Mears/Sayer manifesto banks on securing a sympathetic Council to effect reform.

Hence the call for more solicitor-friendly volunteers to contest future constituency elections.But, however well meaning a new Council may be, solicitor-friendly reforms are simply not achievable within the existing constitutional framework of the Law Society.The newly formed Solicitors Association has looked closely at the Law Society's charter and bye-laws and the statutory duties imposed upon the Society by successive governments.

The charter, dating from 1845, sets down the constitutional basis for the Society's representative role.

In this private capacity the Society is a chartered association for solicitors.

It belongs to the general membership.

In 1974 Parliament conferred on the Council of the Society regulatory duties for the protection of the public.What happens if there is a conflict between the Society's private representative duty and its statutory obligations to the public? The answer is to be found in the House of Lords decision in Swain v The Law Society 1983.

Unsurprisingly, their Lordships confirmed that the public interest must always prevail.

Lord Diplock went further.

He suggested that whilst it was unlikely that there should ever be a conflict between the interests of the public and the profession in the long-term, any divergence of these interests in the short-term had to be reconciled in favour of the public.

This interpretation has been confirmed by the recent opinion obtained from Michael Bellof QC by Mr Edge.The principle in Swain has underpinned the whole ethos behind Law Society policy-making over the last decade.

Even when the going gets tough the Society, acting through its Council, will formulate policy on the basis of Lord Diplock's dictum.

For proof you need look no further than the 'Conveyancing and indemnity' paper which was issued to the profession last month.Para 2.7 states: 'The Society has always recognised that the public interest must be the prime determinant of its policies.

Any other approach would be short-sighted and, on any long-term analysis, would be unlikely to serve the profession's interests well.'Contrast the following statement issued by the Solicitors Association: 'The association recognises that the profession's interests must be the prime determinant of its policies.

Any other approach would be short-sighted and, on any long-term analysis, would be unlikely to serve the public's interests well.'The distinction is not merely semantic but fundamental.

Both statements confirm that the long-term public inter est should remain paramount.

The difference lies in the approach taken in relation to the interests of the profession.

By virtue of Swain, the Society is bound to disregard the profession's interests unless they coincide with those of the public -- even in the short-term.

If the interests of the profession are ever to receive an adequate airing they have to be voiced by an organisation untrammelled by Swain.Look at the recent fiasco over conveyancing fees.

We know that price controls, whether in the form of mandatory or indicative scales, or a change to our indemnity rules, are not unlawful per se, at least in terms of competition law.

Had the Society's Council not been constrained by the principles in Swain, the Edge initiative would have been implemented by now.

It might be the subject of a Monopolies and Mergers Commission (MMC) investigation, but at least the issue would be out in the open.

It could be debated properly in the public domain.

Instead, it might yet be consigned to the archives in Chancery Lane.Why have our doctors, architects and surveyors all been able to argue their cases before the MMC? The answer: because they each have dedicated representative professional bodies.The Solicitors Association maintains that the Law Society is faced with irreconcilable conflict.

How can it possibly discharge its obligation to protect the public and represent solicitors to the best of its ability at the same time? Arguably, the conflict barely existed in 1886 when it was described as 'the best organised and most intelligent trade union in the country'.

More recently, the British Medical Association has been called 'the strongest trade union in the world'.As long as the Law Society continues to wear both hats it can never effectively pursue the profession's interests.

It is caught between the devil and the deep blue sea.

It matters not that it is staffed by loyal and committed personnel.

As solicitors, we all know that conflicting interests demand separate representation.

The Society should release its non-regulatory functions to a dedicated and properly funded representative organisation.The Solicitors Association would like to hear solicitors' views on the future role of the Law Society.

Contact any member of the association's steering group: Anthony Bogan, tel 0181 570 4545; John Edge, tel 01202 556587; Richard Green, tel 01725 552699; Ken Seakens, tel 01344 843666; Ian Marsom, tel 01344 843666.