Our representative body is dividing us into premier and second division solicitors

So, I see the Law Society have decided the time has come to divide its members into the haves and have nots. There will now be '¨a two-tier system where the premier division will be determined by those who have opted to join the society's conveyancing scheme '’ which they continue to refer to as the Conveyancing Quality Scheme when they have still and singularly failed to justify the appellation of 'quality' '’ admitting the numbers likely to join have reached their peak.

The others of us solicitors (the majority), who are not so 'quality' oriented, will be in the second division or, as I look at it, the bottom division.

Premier division

I hasten to add that there is another premier division parallel to that of the Law Society's hand-picked squads, namely the licensed conveyancers, who are equally not quality oriented but have the benefit and blessing of not being within the aegis of the Law Society.

There has been substantial rioting by fellow members of my profession and counsel objecting to the comparable so-called innovations and incursions on the criminal law field, and I applaud the positive, pro-active approach they have taken. I am sorry that we, in the property world, have been somewhere between reactive and dead in not protecting the interests of ALL members of '¨our profession.

The reason for my anger '’ disquiet is too insignificant a description of how I feel '’ is that the Law Society, representing my best interests, has decreed that when residential conveyancing goes online it will be available to all solicitors and licensed conveyancers, but, those not accredited under the society's conveyancing quality scheme will have to undergo vetting before they can use it.

As a paid-up member of the Law Society union, having passed my exams and gone through my training followed by umpteen years of experience dealing with thousands of transactions involving the Land Registry I wonder why I am still required to be vetted? Is one '¨year (or less) in the scheme '’ which remains to be fully '¨tried and tested '’ deemed of greater qualification than my '¨40 years of experience, expertise, and integrity?

If I felt we '’ the Law Society '’ have lost the plot before, now '¨I can see things only getting worse. They have lost sight of what the role of our society includes, blinded by their need to attempt to justify the value of their scheme which a majority '¨of us have not seen fit to join.

Improved communication

I love the comment that, among other things, going online will improve risk management. And improve communication. Has anyone at the Law Society making such grandiose commitments experienced the workings of online machinery? "Thank you for calling, your call is very important to us. Press 1 for sending your application, press 2 if you have a query on an existing application, press 3 if you want to talk to someone. Thank you, you have pressed 3, you want to talk to someone. Is that correct? Press 1 for yes and 2 for no. You pressed 1. If you want to speak to someone about a new application press 1, if an existing application press 2, if you want some interaction with another human being other than to discuss a new application or an existing application press 3. You pressed 3. Is that correct? Please press 1 for yes and 2 for no. I'm sorry I didn't understand that word. Press 1 for yes or 2 for no. Thank you. Is the other human being you want who is not to discuss '¨a new application or an existing application someone to discuss your general query on a general matter in which case press 1, '¨a general query on a specific matter, in which case press 2, '¨a specific point on a general matter in which case press 3, '¨a specific point on a specific matter press 4 or none of these '¨in which case press 5. Or none at all in which case press 0. You have pressed 0. Is that correct? '¨I am sorry we don't accept'¨ that sort of language. '¨Goodbye." SJ