How should we react to the formation of the Solicitors Association? Everyone would agree with its objectives: to promote and represent the interests of solicitors; to encourage professional excellence; and to unify the profession.

Who could possibly object to such laudable aims? But, hang on: isn't there an existing body which is supposed to be trying to achieve all these things? Indeed, there is.

It is called the Law Society.Why, then, do we need a new representative body, a body which on the face of it is no more than a reanimated British Legal Association?The argument of the promoters of the Solicitors Association runs thus.

The Law Society is vested by statute with regulatory functions which have to be exercised in the public interest.

Since, from time to time, the public interest and that of the profession will be in conflict, the Law Society is attempting to reconcile the irreconcilable.

It cannot be an effective trade union as well as a regulator.

This is the argument and I believe it is profoundly misguided.It has been a constant theme of my articles and speeches that there is in fact no conflict between the enlightened self-interest of the profession and that of the public.

Take, for example, the question of conveyancing fee rates.

The profession's case is straightforward: if these fees fall below a reasonable level firms cannot provide the quality service which the public rightly demands.

It is consequently in the public interest that solicitors should be properly paid.

This argument holds good for all the other professions, doctors, dentists, architects etc.I cannot think of a single initiative or measure which the Vice-President, I and others have pursued in recent months which, if achieved, would be detrimental to the public.

In no case have I felt unable to argue, with conviction, that our interest is, in a proper perspective, identical with that of the whole community.If, for example, the Lord Chancellor's legal aid proposals are implemented, this would be prejudicial to the public's access to justice as well as the profession's financial interest.The Solicitors Association's position is that the interests of the public and the profession are not the same.

Where does that argument lead? Ex hypothesi, it ends in a demand for measures, restrictions and practices which it is accepted are opposed to the general benefit.

That is not a position which any self-respecting profession can adopt.In what respects would the Solicitors Association be better equipped than the Law Society to represent the profession? I take only one example of the things it says it wants to do.

It would 'be responsible for negotiations' with, inter alia, the government, mortgage lenders and consumer groups.

But what additional clout would enable it to extract any more from these bodies than the Law Society can?The Solicitors Associat ion lists, as its immediate priorities, these:-- 'To take steps to ensure the eradication of predatory pricing.' Well, yes, an excellent idea.

But how exactly?-- 'To negotiate fair and proper retainer terms and fees with mortgage lenders.' This is what the Law Society has been trying to do for the last six months but it takes two to negotiate an agreement.

Suppose that finally the mortgage lenders agreed to pay conveyancers directly (as, of course, they should)? The inevitable response of cut-price practitioners would be to discount their fees to the purchaser by the amount received from the mortgage lender.

If that happened, we would be back where we started.-- 'To take a fresh look at legal aid.' A fresh look? And what would be done after taking it? Would the Solicitors Association have any leverage over an intransigent Lord Chancellor which the Law Society does not possess?-- 'To abolish the Solicitors Indemnity Fund and revert to the market place.' Reverting to the market place would have two inevitable and immediate consequences.

Insurance premiums overall would rise since, of course, insurance companies exist to make a profit whereas SIF does not.

At the same time, the premiums of conveyancers (which are at the moment subsidised by the rest of the profession) would at least double.The Solicitors Association once established, the Law Society would be left behind as a rump regulatory body.

It would be responsible, inter alia, for education and training, professional practice, conduct and discipline.

The rump body might or might not be left in the control of solicitors.

In the former case what kind of solicitors would run it? Almost certainly they would be old guardists of the type who have managed the Law Society during the past 40 years and who, at long last, are having this control wrested from them.What about reformists like the Vice-President or myself or, indeed, Anthony Bogan who is a member of the Solicitors Association steering group? Would we seek office in the Law Society or the Solicitors Association or in both of these? It would be somewhat difficult to serve in both since one of the anticipated functions of the Solicitors Association would be to negotiate with the Law Society! Perhaps the Vice-President or Mr Bogan would end up negotiating with me.

That does not seem a very useful step forward.I can easily understand the frustrations and aspirations of the founders of the Solicitors Association.

They want reform and they want it quickly.

They are depressed by the decline in the profession's standing and prosperity and they want something done about it and without delay.

But they should heed the lessons provided by the fate of the British Legal Association and the SDP.To make a difference you have to occupy the real citadels of power.

The Law Society's is one such citadel.

It is a machine which, with all its imperfections, already exists and which has an immense capacity to work for the benefit of the profession.

Reformists should concentrate their energies on making it their own.