I am not a member of the Council of the Law Society, nor am I an academic.

Since my admission as a solicitor 23 years ago I have not thus far had the temerity to write a letter to the Gazette, let alone to suggest that I might have something to say in an article.Angela Deacon's viewpoint on separate representation (see [1994] Gazette, 23 November, 10) simply demands a response on behalf of the majority of the profession which, for very good reason, is firmly against the self-destructive notion of separate representation for mortgage lenders on conveyancing transactions.I do not represent a special interest group such as sole practitioners or firms dependent upon conveyancing.

The practice of which I am managing partner realised some considerable time ago that long term success was dependent upon providing specialists in individual disciplines able to provide expert advice promptly and efficiently to meet market demands.

The domestic conveyancing market has never provided more than 20% of our gross fee income.The arguments against separate representation are many and compelling and need to be stated forcefully.The legal profession has historically had a very poor image with the public.

The twin sins that are most commonly laid at our door are that we are too expensive and too slow.

Over the last decade many solicitors have been trying to address this image at grass roots level by building practices which are responsive to the needs of the market place and sufficiently streamlined to produce those services cost efficiently.How are we supposed to explain to conveyancing clients that the cost of the transaction which brings the public into contact with the profession more than any other is to increase and at the same time is going to take a lot longer to complete?Conveyancing costs are already at an all time low and practitioners will not be able to reduce costs to the client simply because they are now only acting for the client rather than the client and the building society.

The fee to the building society's appointed solicitor will be an additional fee.The time taken on the average conveyancing transaction is bound to increase.

The very process of doing searches, raising preliminary enquiries, investigating title and satisfying oneself on all those matters for the benefit of the client and then sending the paperwork to another firm in order for it to follow the same procedure for the lender will consume time unnecessarily.The lender's solicitor will be removed from time pressures and the commercial reality of the market place.

He or she will not necessarily appreciate the practical problems of a chain awaiting exchange and the job will become that much more difficult as a result.The Society is thus sanctioning a move which its members know will put the profession back ten years in terms of the perception of the profession by its public.

It is a nonsense to say that conflicts of interest will arise where one acts for purchaser and lender.

This will only happen if the solicitor is not doing his or her job properly.Most of us find no difficulty at all in advising conveyancing clients that we act for the building society as well as for them, and whilst there are matters which they may have been prepared to take a chance on, the demands of the lender mean that they are not in a position to take that risk.Angela Deacon asks: 'How many solicitors are now explaining the possible conflict to housebuyers?' It is simply a matter of basic good practice to explain to buyers that they are not in a position to instruct you to take short cuts because of their mortgage.

At the end of the day, both lender and buyer need a good title.The problem could be perfectly well met by a practice guidance note for solicitors acting for purchaser and lender, detailing what the solicitor must say to the client, the purchaser, about his or her duties to the lender.More and more solicitors are admitted to the Roll every year.

There are now three times as many solicitors as there were 30 years ago.

We have just emerged from a recession and high street conveyancing firms have taken a battering.This proposal would increase the number of jobs available via the artificial device of insisting that at least two people are necessary to do the job which can properly be done by one.

Within the profession, we think it stinks.

What must the outside world think?It is not so very long ago that the profession was put into a panic by the proposals, now law, that building societies can set up legal departments and carry out conveyancing work.

The threat never became a reality because building societies have recently been licking their wounds from their foray into estate agency and are, for the time being, disinclined to engage in any other non-core activity.This proposal would prevent them from doing both mortgage work and client conveyancing; it may well lead them to the inevitable decision that the mortgage work will need to be done in-house.

If forced to review their current arrangements, who knows where the process might end?Is it entirely fanciful to think that societies may recommend a small number of firms to act for the client, the benefit being an understanding that those firms will charge low rates for volume recommendations? The point I make is that there is no guarantee at all t hat when the lending giants are forcibly stirred from their slumbers, the result will be of benefit to the high street practitioner.The interests of the sole practitioner may well conflict with the interests of the majority of the profession.

Lenders are already discriminating against clients who choose sole practitioners to act for them, not because they do not like the people who run sole practitioner firms, but because the claims recorded against such practices inform them that it is not always a sensible decision to instruct sole practitioners.I am afraid that the answer for the sole practitioner is to demonstrate that he or she is as competent as the multi-partner firm and not by providing the sole practitioner with a legislative safe haven where he or she can continue to thrive.