Fusion FactsHaving originally been admitted as a barrister and solicitor in the fused legal profession of Western Australia, 1 have long been bemused by the resistance of various interest groups to the (so far) decade-long process of reform that will inevitably and ultimately culminate in fusion of the legal profession in England and Wales.While the historical reason for fusion of the legal profession in Western Australia was essentially practical - when the Supreme Court was established in 1861 there were about seven practising lawyers in the then colony - fusion there has in practice had none of the disadvantages claimed by the proponents here of the maintenance of separate branches of the legal profession.

In particular, the standards of professional conduct demanded of members of the profession are equally high in that jurisdiction as they are here.The fused profession, as it applies in Western Australia, has the following features: there is a flourishing and expanding independent bar providing specialised advocacy services, primarily comprised of practitioners who have made the transition from practice within a law firm; there is common training to all aspiring entrants to the profession and students do not have to decide while still at university which branch of the profession they will seek to enter; all members of the legal profession - from the Chief Justice down - enter the profession by the same route, upon completing articles; it is the case in complex litigation that, while a QC practising at the independent bar will be instructed to lead, his or her junior will be the litigator in the law firm which has the conduct of the matter; and fusion offers a greater degree of choice and more flexible career path to litigators than is possible in a jurisdiction which maintains separate branches of the profession.The implementation of full fusion of the legal profession here, resulting in the abolition of the remaining - and increasingly blurred - distinctions between its separate branches will act as a catalyst to greater choice and efficiencies, both to the public and to members of the profession.

The government should grasp the nettle and accelerate this tortuous process of reform to its natural conclusion.

Neil Harrold, solicitor, Newcastle upon Tyne

ContributionsThe Editor welcomes letters from readers.

Shorter letters (max 250 words) have a much better chance of publication.

All letters, including e-mails, must include a full postal address and practice details.

They should be sent to the Editor, the Law Society's Gazette, 6th Floor, Newspaper House, 8-16 Great New Street, London EC4A 3BN; LDE 100; fax 020 7831 0869.E-mail your letters to jonathan.ames@lawsociety.org.uk