It seems inevitable that by this time next year conveyancing solicitors will have had to come to terms with a rather different pattern of work.

We will no longer be able to represent both buyer and lender in the same transaction.

This will no doubt be regarded as bad news by conveyancers, who are often the most resistant to change.In the recent consultation most conveyancers who responded (sadly a small number altogether) said that they did not want any change to the existing rules, and so did a fair number of sole practitioners.But the change is clearly coming.

Richard Hegarty, chairman of the Law Society's property and commercial services committee, said last week that the days of joint representation were numbered.In a series of judgments, the courts have exposed the conflicts of interest and the liabilities that solicitors face when trying to act for borrowers and lenders in the same transaction.Joint representation is only permissible, the courts have said, if both parties have given their informed consent to the limitations on advice and service.

How many solicitors are now explaining the possible conflict to house-bu yers?The Law Society cannot ignore the clear advice from the courts, and we must face the fact that change cannot be delayed much longer.

The Council has statutory powers conferred by Parliament and has to act in the public interest.

It may have to make a new rule despite the lack of support.How clumsy can the Law Society get, I hear people howling already.

Isn't this about the worst time ever for the Council to be blundering ahead without the whole-hearted support of the profession? But there are times when Council members have to do their duty.

It can hardly be in the long-term interests of the profession for us to ignore court rulings on professional conflicts.I look on the bright side.

Lenders are already discriminating against clients who choose sole and small practices to act for them.

Some lenders have been planning to introduce 'preferred panels' and you can bet that sole practitioners would not have had much of a look in.Sole practitioners ought to favour a market in which borrowers cannot be disadvantaged if they choose a sole practitioner to act for them.Realistically we have to accept that when lenders select their own solicitors to act for them, they probably will not choose many sole practitioners.

They will go for larger firms which will be able to handle hundreds of transactions at a time.Those firms will be able to negotiate sensible terms of work with the lenders because the lenders will have to buy their services.

(It will be interesting to see if competition forces lenders to absorb their own legal costs rather than passing them on to borrowers - no doubt one reason why the lenders are opposing separate representation.)Acting for lenders is probably work which sole practitioners do not want anyway.

We want to keep our contacts and reputations with our existing and established clients, who recommend us to their families and their friends for the personal service we can offer.Look at the instructions you get from any mortgage lender these days.

They are artfully constructed documents which have one aim in mind.

That aim is not to inform the solicitor of the steps the lender would like to be taken.The aim is to ensure that if anything goes wrong, the solicitor can be sued and the lender can have recourse to the deep and accessible pocket of the Solicitors Indemnity Fund.Why do you think some lenders are now asking solicitors to confirm the assumptions made by the valuer? Because they have discovered that some valuers are not insured too well, and they want our profession to underwrite dodgy valuations.I would not mind taking on extra responsibilities if I was paid to do it by a client who valued the service enough to pay me.

But who wants to have clients like today's lenders - who do not pay you, who do not thank you, and whose prime concern is to make sure they can sue you? I would prefer to have clients who appreciate the service I offer, helping them through their house move from beginning to end, from advice on the right mortgage to guidance on the day of the move.In return for a reasonable fee, I would prefer to offer them my undivided loyalty rather than having to warn them that I also owe duties to their mortgage lender.In a year or so, when all the changes have happened and clients have become used to the new arrangements, I suspect that solicitors, and in particular sole practitioners, may be quietly cheering the Law Society.

On second thoughts, they will not do that.

They will say it was obvious all along that the change ought to be made, and why didn't the Society make it years ago ?