Matter of choice While I am happy to respect Keith Teare's vehement opposition to the principle of multi-disciplinary partnerships (MDPs), much of his letter cannot go unchallenged (see [2000] Gazette, 23 November, 18).

There have already been three consultations: 1987, 1993 and 1998.

All of them were more than profession-wide.

If the law Society Council gives the green light there will soon be yet another consultation.

Some members of the profession are getting just a bit weary of consultation.Mr Teare seems to regard as quite ghastly the prospect that any firm of solicitors should invite a non-solicitor into partnership.

Some of us think it could be a breath of fresh air.

Perhaps it is time for a rethink by those who argue (expressly or impliedly) that we have a monopoly on integrity or standards of public service.

It is quite wrong to suggest that MDPs are only about large City firms merging with accountants.

In fact that is probably the least likely forum for MDPs, not least because the largest accountants are hugely bigger than the largest solicitors.

There are many smaller and middle-size solicitors which, along with several larger firms, keenly want to seize the business opportunity which the MDP model we have called 'legal practice plus' would offer.

Under this model, solicitors would remain in control and the work would continue to be the services offered by legal firms but with the additional expertise of others such as surveyors, accountants, estate agents, engineers - the list goes on and on.

This provides the ability to tap into the resource of other disciplines on an equal footing by offering partnership.The proposal of the Law Society's MDP working party is to offer the profession choice.

Those like Mr Teare who are adamantly against MDPs will continue as they wish, but I hope others will become entitled to embrace new ways of providing better services for our clients.Paul Venton, Law Society Council member, and chairman of the MDP working party