Close readers of the Law Society's consultation document on legal aid, 'Design for the future', will have come across a parag raph on the 'unbundling' of legal services.

Whence comes this concept and what is its import?The word's modern origin lies in the advance in computer technology when software and hardware were rent asunder, allowing enormous advances in both.

Unbundling, thus, provides an effective image for a new version of an old legal practice.

As expounded by Forrest Mosten, its foremost advocate, a lawyer usually offers a 'full service package of discrete tasks that encompass traditional representation'.

Mr Mosten's simple but powerful argument is that although these tasks are convention-ally assembled together, they could be delivered separately.Mr Mosten is no airy-fairy academic.

He is the senior partner in a Beverly Hills matrimonial practice who is making money.

His office offers clients access to a library especially tailored to their needs.

Although in private practice, he places himself firmly in the tradition of the consumerist legal services movement which began in the 1970s when 'the public began demanding more control over accessibility of attorneys, the demystification of legal jargon and arcane court procedures, and alternatives for lower and moderate income people to the high costs of legal services'.These ideas have begun to become accepted in the USA.

The California Bar now produces a looseleaf handbook encouraging lawyers to provide unbundled services.

Its introduction pays tribute to the work of Mr Mosten and then moves into the soft-sell: 'This handbook explains how you - a Californian lawyer - can expand your practice by providing a valuable service to the many consumers who...lack affordable access to our civil justice practice.'Mr Mosten's ideas are challenging and merit transplantation.

They are explained in his contribution to a collection of essays on cutting-edge developments in legal services just published by the Legal Action Group (Shaping the Future: New Directions, price £9.95 plus £2.50 postage and packing from the LAG, 242 Pentonville Road, London N1 9UN).Mr Mosten's essay is thought provoking.

So too is the contract which he appends.

For a lawyer, seeing the agreement actually used between lawyer and client clarifies the practical consequences of the idea.The contract specifies that the scope of the usual lawyer-client relationship is to be limited.

The client must state exactly what services are requested: the client must agree that he or she 'intends to handle [their] own case and understands that [they] will remain in control'.

He or she then ticks the services required out of 17 options plus 'other'.These include 'legal research and analysis', 'evaluation of client's self-diagnosis of the case and advising client about legal rights', 'guidance about procedural information for filing or serving documents' and so on.

The lawyer promises due professional care and confidentiality but limitsThe combination of technology and professional flexibility could breed a new opportunity for lawyers services provided to those expressly specified and states, with capitals as in the text, that the 'attorney SHALL NOT...

represent, speak for, appear for, or sign papers on the client's behalf'.The crux comes in the way that the contract seeks to limit professional liability.

The client grants immunity to the lawyer for any liability arising other than for a task which was specified as being the lawyer's responsibility.Furthermore, the 'client agrees to bear the full risk of any damage caused to the client due to the client handling the matter without specifically requesting legal services from the att orney'.

Professional liability is, of course, a major obstacle to setting up arrangements of this kind.

It is what stops you advertising and selling legal advice by the hour because of the problem that arises if a vital case could reasonably have been found only after 90 minutes of study.

That is the attraction of attempting to break the case into discrete tasks rather than blocks of time.The potential of unbundling becomes even greater if linked to the potential of new technology, the subject of another contribution to the same collection of essays from an Australian, Terry Purcell.

He has been involved in developing both an expert computer system for lawyers and an information resource aimed at lay court users.He has also been inspired by the electronic legal kiosk developed by North Communications Inc, another product of the Californian crucible of innovation.

This was demonstrated during a brief UK appearance at an LAG conference and to the Law Society Council last November.

Its potential has intrigued almost everyone who has seen it.

The kiosk uses interactive video to conduct a dialogue with a potential court user.

At the end of the interview, personal details can be keyed in and forms printed out.The kiosk is being installed in courts in California and Arizona.

Interestingly, there is an argument that its technology is already outdated.

With the growth of multi-media computers, it will be possible to provide information on law and legal procedure direct to people at terminals in libraries and even in their own homes.Legal services for those whom the Americans tend to call 'middle income clients' with high literacy and computer skills could easily be revolutionised by lawyers adopting a whole new method of service delivery through the use of cable or Internet services.

Eligibility for civil legal aid is, and is likely to remain, at levels well below where many people are excluded from conventional legal services.

There is a growing class of well-educated and increasingly computer-literate people unable to afford conventional lawyers and yet ineligible for legal aid.The combination of technology and professional flexibility could breed a new opportunity for lawyers to reach clients who, hitherto, have not seen themselves as able to afford their services.