As the Law Society Council thrashes out its response to the Clementi review, Janet Paraskeva examines the case for the professional body to regulate solicitors

Last Thursday, the Law Society Council gathered for a special meeting to discuss Sir David Clementi's review of the regulation of legal services, and, in particular, how the Law Society should respond to the review.

This meeting was a reflection of the council at its very best.

The debate was focused on the three major issues addressed by Sir David - how lawyers should be regulated, how the complaints-handling system should work, and whether new business structures for delivering legal services should be permitted.

These are fundamental questions.

Sir David's review is not just a management exercise addressing 'administrative' issues or peripheral concerns.

The questions he is asking go to the very heart of what it is to be a solicitor, and to the heart of our system of law and justice.

Addressing these issues in a debate that lasted for longer than four hours, council members captured the spirit and ethos of the solicitors' profession in a way that was inspiring to anyone who listened to it.

It was great to see and hear the members of the solicitors' governing body debate these issues with such staunchness and passion.

In particular, many council members were at pains to emphasise the centrality of the independence of the legal profession to the functioning of democracy.

At a time when the government is undertaking considerable constitutional reform, and in the absence of a written constitution, we were reminded how important it was that solicitors should vigorously defend their independence.

It was also stressed that the importance of lawyers' independence was reinforced by the principles and professional standards promoted by the United Nations and the European Union, as well as by international lawyers' groups such as the International Bar Association.

We were reminded that the UN's basic principles on the role of lawyers suggest that the profession itself must have a significant input into the standards and ethics of lawyers, stating that rulemaking should either be carried out by the legal profession itself or through legislation.

In drawing up a code of professional conduct, 'recognised international standards and norms' would need to be taken into account.

It is not only international standards that require a degree of independence and self-government for the legal profession.

The European Parliament, for example, passed a resolution on market regulations and competition rules for the liberal professions on 11 December 2003.

It stated: 'The importance of ethical conduct, of the maintenance of confidentiality with clients, and of a high level of specialised knowledge necessitates the organisation of self-regulation systems such as those run today by professional bodies and orders.'

Council members called on solicitors to take pride in their profession and in the independence of the profession.

They emphasised the vital role that lawyers play in ensuring fairness in society and in the preservation of the rule of law.

And they commended the work done by the Law Society on issues of law reform - from criminal to tax law - as an important service to society carried out in the public interest.

One of the other issues central to the council's debate was the question of how one body can continue to both regulate and represent the solicitors' profession.

This has always been a contentious question and remains so.

Recognising this, we will, in the autumn, be conducting a review of how to modernise the way the Law Society represents the profession.

But the argument that resounded most powerfully in the council's debate was the view that, in fact, solicitors would be most effectively represented by their professional body if that body was also responsible for regulating the profession.

This is particularly true in the Law Society's international work - when pressing for increased practice rights overseas, the arguments are much more convincing if the president can also claim a genuine role in shaping practice rules and regulation at home.

But the same principle applies to domestic issues too - the Law Society can much more successfully represent the profession's views to government if it can demonstrate that it is a robust and fair regulator, which operates in the public interest.

However, there is almost universal agreement that change in regulation and the delivery of legal services is inevitable, and indeed, probably necessary.

But if government and the public had been able to listen to the debate that I heard last week, they would undoubtedly come away with the realisation that any notion of excluding lawyers from the regulation of legal services would be folly.

I have not even attempted to capture here the whole breadth and depth of that discussion.

However, the content of the council's discussions will be invaluable in shaping the tone and content of the Law Society's response to Sir David.

Most important of all, the council's debate demonstrated that solicitors are wholeheartedly dedicated to the promotion and protection of the public interest, both in their practice of the law and in their regulation of the profession.

And they are passionate advocates of the independence of the legal profession as central to the rule of law and to the benefit of all in society.

Janet Paraskeva is the Law Society chief executive