Robert Sayer promises to be the 'voice of the ordinary practitioner' on the Council of the Law Society.

In his view, the great bulk of practitioners at the moment are 'demoralised, depressed and poor' and much of what is being offered in the way of relief by Chancery Lane is 'well meaning but irrelevant'.He gives an example: the practice management standards.

'It is the kind of thing I would see as necessary in a large organisation like a big business or perhaps a large solicitor's office.

But most of it is totally irrelevant to what a one and two man band does.He explains: 'An ordinary solicitor carries a lot of the management information in his head.

It may be informal, it may be messy by business consultants' standards, but it works - in the same way as a corner shop or newsagents works'.Sayer is not against efficiency.

He is not saying that solicitors should not employ management systems.

But he is all for flexibility and solicitors being able to choose what suits them best.He traces the profession's malaise - the increased incidence of dishonesty and negligence - to low returns for work, particularly conveyancing.

'It is the failure of [conveyancing] fees to keep level even with inflation which has caused a lot of solicitors out there to end up in a desperate situation where they are heavily in overdraft to their banks and cannot see anyway out except through dishonesty.'What practitioners need is 'absolutely basic help', Sayer contends.

'A lot of firms need a big brother - the friendly kind - to hold their hand and show them how to charge enough, and how to make use of computer programmes to standardise docu ments'Sayer doubts that the Law Society is the body to do this.

'Why should anybody think that one organisation can help 60,000 plus practising solicitors when they have so many diverse needs and interests.' He points out that the 'ordinary high street practitioner has as much relationship to a reasonable-sized commercial firm as Wimpey the builder does to a jobbing carpenter'.But he also believes that the Society's regulatory role gets in the way of it being an effective guardian angel.

Firms don't want help from somebody who in the same breath could say "We may have to report that," he points out.

'People do fear the Law Society - they fear it tremendously out in the sticks.

I mean the Law Society is considered a little like traffic policemen - they will always find something wrong with your car.'Sayer believes it is this fear that undermines the effectiveness of consultations with the profession.

'Most people are frightened to say what they really think in case it is used against them'.The new Council member admits that he has yet to formulate his thoughts properly but he is inclined to believe that self-help groups may hold the key to solicitors' problems.

'This is something where practitioners have to start helping each other - less of this cut throat competition with firms frightened to talk to each other in case they lose clients.'Meanwhile, he has strong views on how the governing body he has just joined could shake itself up.

He would scrap many of the committees for a start in favour of a 'war cabinet'.

The aim would be to cut through the thicket of bureaucracy which currently ensures that every new proposal has a gestation period of up to two years with an end result that bears scant resemblance to the original.His war cabinet - made up of no more than four 'sensible' people - would come up with a plan and implement it within a matter of weeks or at most, months.

Again, the sole emphasis would be on 'getting fee incomes back up to where they should be'.His own firm, Sayer Moore & Co, London, switched to hourly rates for conveyancing work and still manages to get in the work (see [1994] Gazette, 12 October, 12).

'If you get people earning reasonable money, the profession is going to be more secure, more confident, it is going to be safer.'As for consulting with the members, Sayer favours the holding of referenda as the only way of getting reliable feedback.

He feels certain that some recent measures introduced by the Society would never have stood the test of a secret ballot.As an example he cites the changes to the remuneration order enabling certain residuary beneficiaries to request a bill assessment.

'Politically correct crap', is his scathing verdict on this change.'It is the kind of thing which sounds as if it is a good idea but is going to cause absolute chaos.' Solicitors, he says, are all too familiar with the kind of troublesome family 'baying for its funds' and ever ready to challenge the solicitor's charges.

'We are offering [residuary beneficiaries] a system whereby they can have their fees reduced, free of charge with nothing to lose.

Why wouldn't they avail of it?'And that is another thing that gets up Sayer's nose; the Society's active encouragement of complaints.

'We have got a situation now where there is no complaint too trivial to look at.'He thinks it is madness to call the disciplinary arm, the Solicitors Complaints Bureau.

'If it has to exist then well and good but don't publicise it.

People are not slow, they know how to complain and you don't what to be putting the idea in to their heads all the time'.Sayer's blunt, plain-speaking ways strike a chord with the high street practitioner.

His Central and South Middlesex constituents elected him to put Chancery Lane on the spot.

And his maiden contribution at the first Council meeting two weeks ago pulled no punches: 'The Society's expenditure is going up inexorably year after year at a time when most firms' income is going down.

The profession ought to know where the money is going and ought to know that they are getting value for it.'