The report in our news pages of the Bristol solicitor Michael Hugh Greet who was allowed to practise for some four years without complying with the terms of his practising certificate makes for sorry reading.

This time Mr Peter Ross of the Office for the Supervision of Solicitors cannot really say that no responsibility lies with him and his staff.

He can, and no doubt will, mitigate his situation by saying that he was only in office for twelve months before the problem came to light.When the non-compliance eventually surfaced in June last year what was done? Not, it seems, very much.

Mr Greet was still in practice in early March.

Against this may be set the active involvement of the OSS in the stupid quarrel Arnold Rosen is having with a court clerk (see NLJ comment, March 27).Just what steps were taken by Ms Lowe and the senior staff at the SCB to ensure that the necessary certificates were lodged by Greet? What did she do when they were not? When Mr Ross took over, what steps did he institute to ensure that such very important matters as defaulting solici tors received his personal attention? However the Council of the Law Society wrapped up Ms Lowe's departure, it was generally known that things were not well with the SCB.

It should have been a matter of prime importance that serious matters such as non-complying solicitors who might possibly have been neglected received urgent attention.It now appears that the losses to be borne by the long suffering profession in Greet's case are likely to be between £350,000 and £500,000.

Obviously even in the best regulated offices, accidents will happen but, allowing a solicitor who is suspect already to get away with non-compliance for three long years borders on a degree of negligence which would surely result in the disciplining of an ordinary solicitor.If this were a one-off then it might not be so bad but only last month the OSS was obliged to climb down in its claim for £31,000 in the bankruptcy of solicitor James Peasegood.

In February 1988 he was granted a practising certificate after failing to file an accountant's certificate.

Mr Ross very decently now accepts that there is a moral argument that the SCB contributed to circumstances whereby it became necessary to make the payments.

The Law Society maintained that his was a one-off situation with "no global significance".

Under the circumstances the OSS might well have wanted to comb their files to ensure there were not other little Peasegoods festering in them.

The SCB/OSS ought to have been well aware of the dangers.Just how many more of these cases are there lying around? How many solicitors have quarterly accounts ordered? It can or should only be a handful.There is indeed an argument that if a solicitor needs to provide quarterly accounts he should not be allowed to practise on his own account.

How many have this six monthly requirement -- a double handful?The OSS is now satisfied that matters brought to its attention are being dealt with within two weeks and that caseworkers are being drafted in to deal with the backlog.

But as Arnold Rosen asked last week (see p 429): Of what calibre are these caseworkers? Are they people with experience of general practice? If not, what real use are they?It is worth noting that the number of complaints which reach the OSS now amounts to almost one for every two solicitors in the country.

Just what is happening? Are solicitors so bad mannered and incompetent that this is a genuine situation or are the public leaping on a bandwagon which is gathering pace?There also appears to be a curious lack of liaison between the OSS and local law societies who, in a way should be the eyes and the ears of the Council and indeed, from time to time, the OSS.

Now the ranting of malcontents such as Messrs Mears and Rosen and the New Law Journal are one thing but when the secretary of a local law society (see news, p470) can get no co-operation then it is quite another matter.

There really should be some procedure so that local law society chairmen and secretaries are informed of decisions of the Disciplinary Tribunal and that their comments on local situations be at least considered.In the meantime, Martin Mears has once more pressed for a Visitor to be appointed by the Law Society.

If ever there seemed an appropriate time for a Visitor then this is the one.

We doubt, however, whether the Council will seize the opportunity with which it is being presented.

If the Greet affair does turn out badly then the Ombudsman may in turn be somewhat irritated.

A Visitor would certainly be a good way of deflecting incipient wrath.UROMEK#