The Law Society Council's decision that the Office for the Supervision of Solicitors (OSS), save in exceptional circumstances, should stop dealing with a range of matters will not be universally welcomed.

These matters include considering allegations about conduct outside practice, resolving disputes between solicitors and employees and alleged non-payment of fees to pro fessional agents, experts and counsel.Some will accuse the OSS of being unhelpful and causing considerable inconvenience to thousands of solicitors and their firms.

In response, I would say that the changes were proposed with genuine reluctance.

Whatever cynics might allege, the truth is that the ethos at the OSS is to try to be helpful whenever possible.The general rationale behind the changes is first that we should regulate solicitors primarily when they are acting as solicitors; secondly, importance must be placed on client-based complaints; and thirdly, that complainants who have other sources of remedy should use them first.

For example, disputes about employment and partnerships are essentially private contractual matters.

The relationship between solicitors and agents and experts are purely contractual -- the OSS should not be seen as a debt collecting agency.The arguments for these changes are overwhelming.

The most powerful single argument is that the OSS simply cannot cope, with the resources available to it, with all the types of work it has done in the past.

It is vital that the OSS is enabled to achieve its prime objective -- to protect clients, the public and the reputation of the profession.The knowledge that some -- it is to be hoped only a few -- solicitors still fail to recognise that as being the OSS's primary function causes me pain.

I fear that too many still see the OSS as a device for fobbing off 'awkward' clients and believe -- when the OSS determines that a client is on the right side of an argument -- that we have failed in our duty and in effect let the side down.

While I have no doubt that these solicitors are in a small minority, they can be vocal.

The media exposure they get tends to give outsiders the erroneous impression that solicitors as a whole care little for quality client care.The vast majority of the profession will welcome the clearer focusing on the core responsibilities of the OSS that these changes to its working practices represent.

They will welcome them for two main reasons.

First, because they rarely, if ever, have any contact with the OSS in a complaints context and are -- to quote a recent correspondent to the Gazette -- 'fed up with carrying the costs of the bad' (see [1999] Gazette, 6 May, 16).

The changes enable the OSS to concentrate its resources on dealing more promptly and cohesively with the miscreant minority.Second, because they are fully aware that the delays in dealing with complaints are causing intense annoyance to the public and consequently MPs, the Legal Services Ombudsman and the Lord Chancellor's Department.

They recognise that self-regulation is increasingly seen not as a right but a privilege -- and not only that, a privilege that is being abused.

They recognise that the eradication of delay in dealing with complaints would be the single most important contribution to the protection of self-regulation.Anything the OSS does towards that end is ultimately in the interests of the profession.