Why is it that solicitors as a profession generate so many complaints and negligence claims? The profession's record in England and Wales is twice as bad as that of licensed conveyancers and its counterparts in Scotland.

And it is a record that would not be tolerated by any successful industrial organisation.The answer is that the Law Society has never honestly dealt with the question of whether solicitors should be seen as constituting a profession or an industry.

The distinction being that a profession regulates itself while an industry is regulated by the market place.

In failing to make a coherent choice between these two options, the Society has inadvertently misled all its principal stakeholders: its members, its employees, the clients of solicitors and, indirectly, the government.

It has done so by offering a universal remedy to an inadequate or negligent professional service while allowing the market place to set the standards by which that service is judged.In short, it has maintained the fiction of a profession while having moved inexorably in the direction of an industry.

In doing so it has broken the first rule of client care: it has raised expectations which it, and the profession are incapable of meeting.

It is this above all that has unleashed the tidal wave of complaints and negligence claims that have all but engulfed solicitors.If solicitors are to be classed as an industry then they should put aside their delusions of grandeur and consign the role of the Law Society to that of a voluntary trade federation.

There is no doubt that such an approach would suit the giants of the legal world who would ultimately, through the application of market forces, dominate the legal landscape.

But would that be in the interests of the majority of the profession and of the public? The latter would have to take its chances with an increasing number of firms which would reduce their service standards to enable them to compete on price.If, on the other hand, solicitors wish to maintain their status of a profession then they must have the courage to enforce service standards which in the past many have not even aspired to.

Belatedly, the Law Society, rather than the Legal Aid Board, should deal with those firms which have traduced the legal aid scheme to the extent that the government has now turned to the voluntary sector for the delivery of legal services.

The Society rather than the police, should be actively enforcing the money laundering regulations.

Above all, the Society would need to ensure that every legal practice is properly managed and that where solicitors are entrusted with significant amounts of client money they are adequately capitalised to minimise the temptation that, in the past, all too many have been unable to resist.That would not be an easy option.

It would be deeply unpopular with a significant sector of the profession and would result in a substantial number of legal practices going to the wall.

It may be that in a world of multi-disciplinary practices and globalisation, self-regulation is no longer a practical option and that the market place should be the sole determiner of service standards.

However, what solicitors cannot do if they are to reta in any degree of credibility or self-respect, is to continue as they do currently: vacillating between the two fundamental options.The reforms introduced by the Law Society's present office holders are essential to the proper running of an efficient organisation.

Ultimately, however, those reforms will not alleviate the difficulties unless and until they are linked to a coherent vision of where solicitors, as a profession or an industry, should be going.