Last month's Law Society Council meeting on the controversial issue of conveyancing fees ended with a unanimous vote and with all shades of opinion expressing their satisfaction at the outcome.The following day the headline 'Law Society chief humbled' appeared in the Independent, while the Guardian ran 'Law Society in turmoil', and The Times reported that the Society had 'drawn back from endorsing measures to eradicate cut-price conveyancing'.The Council had approved the motion set out below.

The original motion, proposed by Vice-President Robert Sayer, had called on the Council to agree in principle to a plan to establish minimum guideline fees for conveyancing backed by changes to the Solicitors Indemnity Fund, prior to full consultation with the profession on the issue.THE MOTION AGREED UNANIMOUSLY BY THE LAW SOCIETY COUNCIL AT ITS MEETING OF 14 DECEMBER 1995 The council resolves that:(a) As a matter of urgency to obtain the advice of leading counsel on the constitutional, competition and vires issues of the matters which are the subject of consultation paragraph (b).(b) To undertake consultation as soon as possible thereafter as to whether the Law Society should:(i) Publish guideline fees for such conveyancing transactions as shall be defined by the Council after consultation.(ii) Seek amendments to the Solicitors Indemnity Rules with the intent that SIF indemnity cover should not generally be available in cases where fees are charged at rates lower than provided by the guidelines, but that in such cases solicitors should be required to arrange their own insurance cover through an authorised insurer.(iii) Introduce mandatory conveyancing quality standards in return for the establishment of a reasonable level of mandatory minimum fees.(iv) Take other action to procure reasonable fees and quality standards and procedures in conveyancing transactions.(c) To authorise the property and commercial services committee and the indemnity working party to settle the final text of a consultation paper setting out all relevant information and considerations in the light of the Council debate.(d) That the consultation paper should be circulated to every solicitors' firm, local law societies and other interested parties.(e) To authorise the president to approach the Master of the Rolls as part of the consultation exercise.(f) To ask the property and commercial services committee and the indemnity working party to set dates by which the consultation paper should be circulated and responses to the consultation should be made so as to allow changes of rules to be considered by the Council no later than April 1996.The unanimously approved motion, which incorporated elements of a motion tabled by Michael Long (East and West Sussex) extended the scope of the consultation and dropped the idea of an agreement 'in principle' being achieved beforehand.Mr Sayer, who wrote to the Guardian protesting about its coverage, said journalists f rom the nationals had 'got it wrong', probably as a result of a 'grave error of understanding'.He said he regretted not holding a press conference immediately after the vote to explain to them what had happened.Mr Long said his aim was to make John Edge's conveyancing fee initiative (CFI) work in a way acceptable to everyone.

'If it was a triumph for anything it was a triumph for common sense and the CFI,' he said.Richard Hegarty, chairman of the Society's property and commercial services committee (PACS), commenting on the debate this week, said: 'At the end of the day it is a conveyancing problem and PACS is the right place to deal with it.

I was going to speak at the end of the meeting but I got everything I wanted.

There would have been a lot more contributions had there been no agreement on the right way forward.'And chairman of the Solicitors Indemnity Fund Andrew Kennedy said the most important thing to him was that president Martin Mears and the vice-president had withdrawn the requirement that the Council should give its agreement in principle to any option before the consultation had taken place.

He added that an 'acceptable compromise had been reached in SIF's terms'.Council member Anthony Bogan, a supporter of the vice-president's original motion on changes to the indemnity fund, said he had sat up all night before the meeting working out how to deal with objections to the scheme.

'I waited for the objections and they never came,' he said.

'It was a good result, and now it is up to the profession to decide which route should be pursued.'It will be interesting to see whether the profession responds to the consultation exercise, unlike the last major consultation on conveyancing following the report "Adapting for the future".'At the other end of the spectrum, Council member Henry Hodge, who tabled an amendment sharply critical of the vice-president's original motion, said he had been 'happy to support the final compromise motion'.Mr Hodge said he was still concerned that the profession's hopes were being raised for political gain, but 'at least through counsel's opinion we will be given an opportunity to see the whole thing in the round'.The Society's head of public relations, Sue Stapely, said there was no time to hold a press conference after the vote because of the pressure of other business on the Council agenda.

'It was perhaps unfortunate that the words "wrecking amendments" [used by Mr Mears during the debate to describe all the alternative motions including Mr Long's] were viewed by journalists as crucial, necessitating an apology and retraction from the president later in the debate,' she said.'This enabled the non-legal press to report the entire debate as more confrontational than in fact it probably was.' Having read the motion carried by the Council so readers can make up their own minds as to whether it was a victory or a defeat for any of the parties involved -- or a compromise.