Last week I attended the annual general meeting of the Croydon Law Society.

For me these occasions are always exhilarating.

They remind me of the extraordinary extent of the support the Vice-President and I still enjoy, four months after our election.

To communicate with the grass roots is to have one's batteries charged.

Alas, the batteries need regular charging for the old spirit of no-can-do-ism remains alive and flourishing at Chancery Lane.Next week the Law Society Council has to consider one of the most important motions ever to come before it.

The motion is put down by the Vice-President, Robert Sayer, and myself and it calls upon the Council to approve in principle a guideline fee scale for conveyancing.

Any transactions charged at a rate below the guidelines would not be covered by the Solicitors Indemnity Fund, and the solicitor would be required to arrange his or her own insurance.I am not concerned to argue the merits of these proposals - the Vice-President does that elsewhere (see p.16).

What there can be no argument about is that if the proposals were adopted by the Council and subsequently approved by the Master of the Rolls (as they would need to be), the financial health and morale of high street solicitors would be transformed.

Surely then, everyone is in favour of the proposals? Well, yes and no.

The position is that reactionary elements on the Council and in the bureaucracy applaud the end, while doing their utmost to dispute the means.

The central argument in support of the proposals is simple.

It is inherently probable that solicitors who charge below economic rates are more likely to cut corners, to employ inferior staff, and to be unable to invest in new technology.

It is not said that these consequences are inevitable or that they will apply in the case of every single firm, merely that the probability is there.

Shoddy work will sooner or later result in more claims on the Solicitors Indemnity Fund.

An increased incidence of claims will mean a general increase in premiums, a burden falling on the whole profession.If these are indeed the facts, then a reasonable case can be made for persuading the Master of the Rolls that the indemnity rules should be changed to reflect them.

Of course, there are counter arguments which are easy to put.

If these were overwhelming then, like it or not, one would have to shrug one's shoulders and abandon the proposals.

So far, however, I have heard no counter arguments which convince me.

On the contrary, what I have seen are critics whose contributions to the debate have been entirely destructive and negative.

Let me give an example.

Reactionary: 'Look, here is a set of figures showing claims on the Solicitors Indemnity Fund made by a group of cut-price conveyancers on the one hand and "ordinary" solicitors on the other.

These figures demonstrate no correlation between under-cutting and claims.'Insurance expert: 'Sorry, but these figures do show a correlation.

Look at them again.'Reactionary (on a later occasion, producing the same set of figures): 'These figures are inconclusive.

They show neither one thing nor the other.'Statistician: 'No, you are wrong.

The figures plainly show a correlation but the sample is small.'Reactionary (triumphant): 'There you are! Perhaps there is a correlation but the sample is too small.'Or here is another example.Reactionary: 'What is really at the bottom of your proposals is an attempt to increase conveyancing fees.' (Shock! Horror!) 'If that is what you want you should be honest about it and apply to the Lord Chancellor's committee for an order under s.56 of the Solicitors Act.' Puzzled solicitor: 'But you yourself have been saying for years that there was absolutely no hope of obtaining consent under s.56.

The Lord Chancellor is a politician and a Thatcherite.

What is the point of such an application?'Reactionary: 'Ah, well, ho, hum...well, all right, we will have been seen to fail honourably.'During the past months the Vice-President has worked manfully on the fee scale/indemnity proposal.

He has produced an excellent draft consultation paper virtually on his own.

If the proposals are finally achieved it will be mainly through his efforts and the profession will owe an enormous debt to him.

What the profession will not have seen is how at every stage the reactionaries have harried him like so many hornets.

It is extraordinary that he has managed not to be drowned under the torrents of their pessimism.Let us be under no misapprehensions.

The proposals which come before the Council next week have no guarantee of ultimate success.

But they represent by far the most promising way forward and if we are to have any possibility of winning, we need to be united and determined to win.