After a decade which saw conveyancing fees fall to a level lower than in any other country in western Europe the Law Society finally tried to work out what had gone wrong.It issued a consultation paper, 'Adapting for the future', which contained a proposal to ban us from representing both lenders and purchasers.

The hostility to this amongst those who replied was overwhelming.

Some 72% rejected it which, when analysed, included 59.5% of sole practitioners, 80% of small partnerships and 76% of local law societies.It seems reasonably safe to assume that had such a majority been in favour of the proposal, rather than against, the result would have been loudly proclaimed to be democracy in action.

Instead, the proponents of separate representation are now ignoring the result, claiming that matters 'have moved on' and that 'recent judgments' make separate representation inevitable.In reality there is only one case which is even vaguely relevant, and then only if the imagination is stretched to extremes of which a medieval scholar would be proud.

This is Clark Boyce v Mouat [1993] 4 All ER 268, which some claim says we can no longer act for both lenders and borrowers.

This is untrue.A mother mortgaged her home in New Zealand to help her son whose business was in difficulties.

She was warned repeatedly by the solicitor of the risks and that she should be separately represented.

She refused this advice, insisting that she trusted her son.

The solicitor prudently got her to acknowledge his advice in writing.Inevitably, when the son went bust and the mother lost her money she blamed the solicitor, sued, and lost both initially and in the Privy Council.Despite the judges clearly referring to the mother and son and not the lender, one comment taken out of context about 'getting informed consent when acting for two parties' is being used to justify this preposterous proposal for change to the conveyancing system.I think this misinterpretation is remarkable, but find it even more surprising that an important comment in the case clearly showing that our responsibilities to clients are considerably less than we have been led to believe has been entirely overlooked.The judge said that solicitors are under no obligation to proffer unsought advice on the wisdom of a transaction and added 'to hold otherwise would impose intolerable burdens on a solicitor'.

He went on to say that where clients have, of their own free will, decided to enter into transactions, it is not up to the solicitor to try to talk them out of it.This appears to release us from any duty whatsoever to advise on any mortgage the client has decided upon.

We may still offer help but to pretend that we actually have an obligation to do so is misconceived.Some people are now implying that there are other cases which support the ban on acting for both lender and purchaser.

Let me make it quite clear: there are no such cases and I challenge anyone to demonstrate differently.Other equally flawed arguments are also being raised, including the contention that the move will cut down on mortgage fraud.

If it does, it will be to such a minor extent and at such a high price in chaos and delay as to be out of all proportion.

Experts in fraud have already said that for the lenders' solicitors to be able to spot fraud they will have to be highly trained, otherwise separate representation 'will make no difference'.If the arguments i n favour do not bear close examination, what is the real reason behind the proposal?It cannot be because it will enrich the profession as, apart from the few firms which land contracts with lenders, we will all be forced to do more work for no extra money and face disgruntled clients who will blame us for the inevitable delays and inconvenience.It is not going to help sole practitioners.

The reason some lenders will not instruct them is simply because the compensation fund operates under less generous rules than the indemnity fund.

If the Society really wanted to end discrimination it would have to merge the two funds, despite the extra £3 million in payouts this might cause.

Making life harder for those of us in partnerships for no good reason shows solidarity with sole practitioners but I think it takes equality a bit too far.I do not want to be forced into commercial suicide for the sake of an ill-conceived, untested and insupportable theory.

There are ways in which the Society could help us restore profit and sanity to the conveyancing world but this proposal is not one of them.Instead of looking for ways to make our lives more difficult, it must adopt a modern, commercial attitude and put our interests first and stop imposing unnecessary restraints on the way we conduct our businesses.