Has the Law Society a future? When the Legal Services Bill hits the statute books this autumn it will revolutionise legal practice in England and Wales. But it could also trigger the demise, after more than 180 years, of the society as a trade union for solicitors.

For the first time, the 100,000 solicitors in England and Wales may no longer have to pay to support their professional body – they could have a choice. What solicitors really think of the society will be put to the test.

The new legislation demands a split between the Law Society’s function as regulator and its role as a trade union. In anticipation of this, the society has already split into three limbs, dealing with regulation, complaints and representation. Significantly, each will have to be transparent as to its costs.

The society enjoys a large budget. Lawyers pay £950 each for the right to practise: 20 per cent of this finances the Law Society's lobbying and representative work. But, in future, the automatic subsidy could end and solicitors could have to fork out extra funds, on top of their practising certificate fee.

The society takes on such battles as legal aid fees; home information packs; opening up new legal markets abroad. To be effective in lobbying, it needs substantial funding. Its budget for representative work is £42.5 million. It generates just over half, or £22.5 million, from investments and commercial activities. At present the £20 million shortfall comes from practising certificate fees. Most firms view these as an overhead and pick up the bills for their lawyers – a hefty expense for large commercial firms with hundreds of solicitors.

But if the new regulatory arm, the Solicitors Regulation Society (SRA), insists that solicitors see what share of their fee goes on what, solicitors could jib at paying what they may regard as an optional extra. The chief executive of the SRA, Antony Townsend, says that its policy is to have the resources it needs to regulate in the public interest. “An agreement has been reached with the Law Society under which, if the SRA and the Law Society are unable to agree on the funding reasonably required by the SRA for regulation, the disagreement would become a matter of public record.” In that event, the decision will fall to the proposed new super-regulator for the legal profession – the Legal Services Board.

In a dispute over funding the new board could be called in as referee, to interpret vague legislative language and determine what should count as law reform (payable by the certificate fees) or trade union activity, which is not. The society could find itself cast loose, a rump of its present self, left to drum up its own membership and levy a fee to continue its work.

If so, who will want it? Specialist bodies already cater for sectors of the profession: the Association of Personal Injury Lawyers, the Criminal Law Solicitors’ Association, Resolution (for family practitioners) and the Legal Aid Practitioners Group among them. They do a good and specific job for their members. Solicitors may not want a trade union – let alone be ready to fork out extra for one.

Karen Mackay, chief executive of Resolution, says: “Regardless of what happens in the legislation, politically, the Law Society will have to make the case to the profession for raising its own funding. And that will be quite a challenge.”

Lawyers at some commercial firms are also sceptical. “The Law Society will have difficulty demonstrating to City firms that it can do a worthwhile job,” a partner at one of the top five says.

Simon Davis, a Clifford Chance partner, is both a committee member of the City of London Law Society and a member of the national Law Society council. He predicts there could be a question over the Law Society’s future finances. “There is no point in having a lame duck national representation body. So, if the society needs funding, I am sure my firm would stand up and be counted. However, if over time, City firms – and smaller firms – took the view that they were not getting value for money, then I am sure the cheque books would be put away.”

There is also a view that there is value in a professional body that fights on a national level for all solicitors – both on matters of common interest (such as legal privilege or money laundering) or on wider justice issues (such as trial by jury). And, some say, it is in the interests of the whole profession to campaign for members under pressure such as legal aid lawyers; in other words, to lobby for wider interests of justice and not just sectional concerns.

This week, Andrew Holroyd, an immigration specialist solicitor from a small firm in Liverpool, will start his year as Law Society President. As the gong is placed round his neck at the society’s annual general meeting, many will wonder how many presidents will follow.

Still, he is putting on a brave face. “When we speak with one voice, we have more impact. Close ties between us [the Law Society] and practitioner associations will provide solicitors with all the representative support and practical help they need.”

Mr Holroyd and the society will discover fairly soon whether solicitors are prepared to pay for that united voice.

Explore Law

• Columnists

• Law Panel

• Law Reports

• Student Law

Times Recommends

• BGC 'set aside £40m to lure Tullett brokers'
• Legal aid review to ensure value
• Fears as 21 magistrates' courts face closure