Tony Bogan correctly commented that the Law Society's multiple roles are logically inconsistent, representing the profession and regulating the same (see [2004] Gazette, 12 February, 15).

His bid, some nine years ago, to try and separate those functions and allot them to separate bodies, failed in a postal ballot, so the confusion has remained.

Truth to tell, asymmetrics and inconsistencies are often accommodated successfully in government and public affairs, but conditions do change, and what was formerly tolerable ceases to be accepted.

The Law Society's Council leaders have not arranged a postal ballot to try and overturn the recent decision on referral fees, nor have they challenged the government to reform the regulatory system.

Clearly they wish to avoid clashes and possible defeats; insofar as they have any policy, it appears to be to follow trends, to tuck and trim, and - above all - to survive.

The one fate that they cannot control is that of funding; without the revenue derived from practising certificate fees, the Law Society, as currently constituted, is unlikely to continue.

Michael Buck, Widford, Hertfordshire