FAMILY PANELAt its last meeting the Law Society Council agreed that a new accreditation scheme for family lawyers should be established.

Eligibility criteria are currently under consideration but the proposals are that applicants must:-- be practising solicitors admitted for at least three years or-- be suitably qualified fellows of the Institute of Legal Executives for at least three years-- have done at least 300-350 hours a year of family law work over the last three yearsThe Law Society's courts and legal services committee is also looking at alternative forms of accreditation which might include a written examination.HILARY SIDDLE EXPLAINS HOW SHE CAME AROUND TO THE IDEA THAT ACCREDITATION COULD BE A MEANS TO SURVIVAL FOR HARD-PRESSED FAMILY SOLICITORSFive years ago I thought that the creation of specialist panels would be damaging to smaller firms because it would redistribute work to larger firms.

However, since then I have been exposed to the government's campaign to direct work away from family solicitors altogether.

I have come to recognise that the development of specialist accreditation may be one means of withstanding the current pressures on family lawyers.Under the Family Law Act 1996 litigation will not be encouraged and legal aid certificates will not be available until all other alternatives have been exhausted.

The new Act requires fresh approaches and new skills.

Large numbers of family solicitors are now undertaking mediation training.

Independently of the Act, some county courts are piloting alternative dispute resolution (ADR) ancillary relief appointments.

The emphasis is already moving away from an adversarial system.

The profession has to be able to demonstrate in a tangible way that it has adapted to the requirements of the new Act.Many solicitors are also unhappy that the Legal Aid Board (LAB) is developing a controlling role through franchising and the stipulation of transaction criteria and believe that it is the Law Society which should be setting the standards.

Publicly--funded mediation is to be financed by the LAB exclusively on a franchised basis.

There is every possibility that the board may become the regulatory body for mediators by default.In addition, clients now have the opportunity to absorb a tremendous amount of information about the divorce process and family relationships from television, newspapers and magazines.

Even in rural areas where the general practitioner survives, the client will prefer to see a family law specialist if one is available within the firm.The initial impetus for some form of accreditation for family solicitors came from the profession itself, particularly from the Solicitors Family Law Association (SFLA).

The Law Society's family law committee took up the campaign not because it wishes family work to be concentrated in the hands of fewer solicitors, but because it considers that the pressures from outside the profession are greater than those within it.THE ESTABLISHMENT OF SPECIALIST PANELS REPRESENT A MAJOR THREAT TO THE SMALL GENERAL PRACTITIONER, ARGUES PETER WATSON-LEEFor solicitors who work in a small general practice, by inclination or necessity, specialist panels are a major threat.

Their purpose is to divert clients towards the panel member and that may mean diverting existing clients away from the small firm.

Some practitioners may be fortunate and be able to achieve panel membership.

But the rural solicitor covering a whole range of legal work may not be able to do that.

And few solicitors will achieve membership of two or more panels.For those who are part of a large firm with specialist departments, or a niche specialist practice, panels are a gift.

A modest fee and a little form-filling generate a decisive marketing advantage over the general practice competitor.Creation of these new panels is a direct intervention by the Law Society into the market place of the high street practitioner.

Once a panel is created those who have ju mped through the hoops to get on are keen to consolidate their advantage.

Marketing campaigns will be run and new products developed for panel members.

Referral agencies will soon be persuaded to recommend clients exclusively to them.Failure to achieve panel status early on will quickly result in dwindling work, which in turn reduces the chances of achieving panel membership in the future.Initially panels were aimed at relatively small areas of the general practitioner's work.

However if all five panels now being discussed -- family, employment, housing, immigration and criminal -- are created they will cover almost all areas of high street litigation practice.What justifies such an intervention? Merely the hope that the Legal Aid Board (LAB) may consider such panels as an alternative to the transaction criteria that form a part of franchising.

But should we not be seeking firm assurances first? If panels are not accepted as an alternative we are going to have a totally confusing parallel system of Law Society panels and franchise accreditations.

And if the legal aid funds end up going to the franchised firms exclusively, the Law Society panels may be a waste of time.MUCH OF THE VENOM HEAPED ON SOLICITORS STEMS FROM BADLY HANDLED FAMILY LAW, SAYS EILEEN PEMBRIDGE, ARGUING FOR SPECIALISATIONThe tendency towards specialisation within the professions has flowed from increasingly complex work and rising consumer standards.

Where it is not needed, or where a general, wide ranging expertise is called for, it does not develop.

However, many solicitors across the country feel the need to concentrate on one or two areas of work and experience the subsequent advantages of increased expertise and professional satisfaction.It follows that many solicitors will want to take advantage of a scheme whereby they can demonstrate enhanced skills to potential employers or clients.That is the prospect which is held out by the Law Society Council's decision to set up an accreditation scheme for family practitioners.

It is too late for the generalist to argue that the tide of specialisation should be reversed.

As consumers, lawyers do not hesitate to select a specialist in a field such as medicine or motor repair, and it is invidious of us to seek to prevent others making informed choices about what we can offer.

Family lawyers, together with conveyancers and probate practitioners, represent the main legal interface with the public.The general perception of solicitors is based upon this interaction.

Much of the venom which journalists and MPs turn on lawyers stems from their experiences of badly handled family law.

Family law is no longer a compulsory subject for qualification as a solicitor yet many dabble in it and do this work badly.Nowadays, family law is under more threat than ever from paralegal activities and from the proposed slashing of legal aid costs.

Family lawyers need distinctive accreditation to help them raise their standards, mark their attainment of these standards and enable a bemused and often distressed public to know where to turn.

Such a scheme is long overdue.

It should be attainable by many, including those who practise in other fields.I strongly believe that our professional body should keep control of our professional standards, to resist uninformed dictatorship from government departments and quangos like the Department of Social Security or the Legal Aid Board.

This is our last chance.DAVID HODSON SAYS THE LAW SOCIETY'S PROPOSALS DO NOT GO FAR ENOUGH AND CANNOT BE ENDORSED BY THE SOLICITORS FAMILY LAW ASSOCI ATIONThe Solicitors Family Law Association (SFLA) has advocated an accreditation scheme in family law for several years.Founded in 1982, our 4,000 members are committed to a code of practice that encourages a conciliatory and constructive approach to resolving family law issues.

But we realise that having the right approach to the work is not enough; specialist skills are required because:-- Clients frequently need a solicitor able to deal with particular complexities-- Referring organisations need confidence in the ability and experience of the intended referee-- The public increasingly telephone for lists of specialistsWhile favouring the establishment of a specialist scheme, the SFLA cannot support the one envisaged by the Law Society.

The proposed accreditation threshold of 300-350 hours per annum over three years, after only three years qualification, is too low.

It will mislead clients, referring organisations and other lawyers.

It is not a reliable test of ability to recognise and handle complex issues.

It will enable a solicitor to have three accreditations, having worked 1.5 days a week in each area.

If the accredited lawyer has to refer clients on to a specialist, the system will be discredited.This low threshold will not act as a significant spur to non-accredited solicitors to improve their knowledge -- an accepted benefit of accreditation.Specialists will not join a low level scheme.

Instead, it may encourage informal groupings of specialists.The SFLA has real anxieties about self-certification and favours an examination route.

The Association is pleased that the Law Society's Council has agreed to study alternative methods of qualifying for the scheme, including a written examination, and hope this will be adopted.Naturally the SFLA supports the Law Society's accreditation criteria of commitment to undertaking the work in a constructive and conciliatory manner akin to the SFLA code.But who are the 5000 or more solicitors who may soon be accredited, but have not so far bothered to be publicly recognised in their commitment by joining the SFLA?The SFLA is pleased that the Council now supports an accreditation scheme.

But the low level threshold for membership will create a scheme that will: mislead the public and create unnecessary divisiveness within the profession without corresponding benefits.It will not increase overall standards of work, it will militate against competent general practitioners and will not produce the body of lawyers necessary for the radical new demands of the Family Law Act 1996.The SFLA urges the Council to opt for an accreditation scheme which stands the best chance of identifying skilled family solicitors.

The SFLA believes the requirement should be 550 hours per annum over three years, six years of qualification, an exam entry, continuing education in family law, and commitment to working in a manner akin to the SFLA code.

Only then will the public have reliability and confidence.