Fusion of the two sides of the legal profession is back on the agenda with a bang, since the government's announcement last month of radical reform to the rights of audience regime.

The Financial Times described the move as 'the final nail into the coffin of an independent Bar'.Under the planned new regime -- which has been put out to consultation -- all solicitors and barristers will acquire full rights of audience before all courts upon qualification, subject to their meeting training requirements set by the professional bodies.

Add to this the suggestion in the consultation paper that solicitors could lose their monopoly on the right to conduct litigation, and there could soon be a legal landscape where there is, to all intents and purposes, no difference in being a solicitor or a barrister.

There could be specialist advocates, working on their own or employed by law firms, but how they got there will be of little importance.Previously, the designated judges -- the Lord Chief Justice, the Master of the Rolls, the President of the Family Division and the Vice-Chancellor -- have had and used the power to block any moves to encourage solicitor-advocates through the requirement that they must all agree with the Lord Chancellor on changes to the system.

The consultation suggests removing this right and placing decision-making power in the hands of the Lord Chancellor alone, thereby reducing the Bar's final protection.Given the size and organisation of their side of the profession, fusion is likely to be good news for solicitors.

As Mark Humphries, a partner at City firm Linklaters and vice-chairman of the Solicitors Association of Higher Court Advocates (SACHA), explains: 'It is cheaper and more satisfactory for clients if litigation and advocacy services are provided by one lawyer rather than two.

Many clients resent their first choice of litigation lawyer having to explain the case again to a barrister so that he can present the case in court when all parties know that the solicitor could have done a better job at far less cost.'So why become a barrister at all? Mr Humphries says that while existing barristers will continue to earn a living through referral work as specialist experienced advocates, or where solicitors are unable or unwilling to provide advocacy services to their clients, 'it is difficult to see why any new entrant to the legal profession would choose to train as a barrister rather than a solicitor.

Solicitors will increasingly conduct advocacy in all cases on which they are instructed'.SACHA chairman, Kerry Macgill says that, on the criminal side, franchising will act as the catalyst for fusion.

'The Legal Aid Board wants franchised firms to get bigger.

The logical extension is to have advocacy inhouse with solicitors and barristers practising together.' While acknowledging that there is 'tremendous expertise and experience' at the Bar which will be needed in the near future, Mr Macgill predicts that in the long term, senior advocates will be drawn equally from each side of the profession, making fusion a 'sensible' consequence.The change could come at the basic level with common vocational education for all law students.

This was the recommendation of the then Mr Justice Ormond when he conducted a review of legal education in 1971 and of the Lord Chancellor's advisory committee on legal education and conduct in 1996.

Nigel Savage, chief executive of the College of Law, comments: 'These [government] proposals will give control of legal training and advocacy to the Lord Chancellor's Department and will lead to professional fusion by the back door.'Nevertheless, the government has been at pains to stress its support for an independent Bar.

In the foreword to the consultation, Lord Irvine says: 'The government supports a strong, independent Bar.

I have more confidence in the future of the privately-practising Bar than some of its apparent defenders.

I do not believe it will wither in the blast of competition from solicitors and employed barristers .

.

.

But this independence is not a justification for immunity from public scrutiny, or for the preservation of outmoded structures or practices.'But how truly independent are self-employed barristers? As The Times put it: 'In practice, the many barristers who depend on keeping a small pool of solicitors and clients happy are no more independent than any employee of a legal firm or the Crown Prosecution Service (CPS).'Even if it survives, the Bar is likely to be considerably different.

Giving CPS barristers the right to conduct cases in the higher courts is expected to take a heavy toll on private barristers' prosecution work.

Some predict that the Bar -- which currently numbers 9,369 private practice barristers -- could shrink by as much as half.

By contrast, there are over 70,000 practising solicitors, although fewer more than 700 solicitor-advocates.Russell Wallman, the Law Society's director of policy, says the Society is 'not actively seeking' fusion, but would have 'no objection' if it happens.

He adds: 'In the medium and longer term, it is increasingly likely that people who practise as barristers will qualify first as solicitors.' Mr Wallman explains that there could still be a separate Bar even if all lawyers had the same training.

'There will be a continuing need for a core of specialist advocates acting on referrals only,' he says.Bar Council chairman Heather Hallett QC has maintained a bullish line over the issue.

She say: 'I have no objection to full rights of audience for those who a re properly regulated and qualified.

Providing there is a level playing field .

.

.

barristers have nothing to fear from fair competition from solicitors.

I welcome the Lord Chancellor's commitment to promoting quality and his support for a strong, independent Bar.

I also share his belief that the best advocates will continue to specialise as barristers and demand for their services will remain high.'But other barristers seem less confident.

In a letter to The Times last week, prominent silk Ronald Thwaites QC warned barristers of dire consequences if they failed to improve the quality of their performance.

He wrote: 'If the only way in which an observer can distinguish between the courtroom advocacy of a barrister and that of a solicitor is by noting that one of them is wearing a horsehair wig, the time cannot be far off when we are consumed by fusion of the professions.

No-one will lament our passing.'