Government plans to modernise legal services could come at the expense of a truly independent law profession, the president of the Birmingham Law Society has warned.

Solicitors in the city set out their concerns in a formal response to the Government's White Paper entitled The Future of Legal Services: Putting Consumers First.

Richard Follis said there were fears about preserving a truly independent legal profession in the light of the White Paper's proposals.

* Tell us your view on this story. Get in touch by email, messageboard or by sending a web letter to the editor *

The Law Society national president, Kevin Martin, met members in Birmingham recently where they aired their views on the proposed changes.

Mr Follis said the concerns of Birmingham members centred around the proposal that the legal profession would have to relinquish self-regulation, which takes place via the Law Society and the Bar Council, to the proposed Legal Services Board.

The board would be a ppointed by the Lord Chancellor.

"The key question is whether that new Legal Services Board will try to be really hands-on and have close control of different parts of the legal profession or regulate with a light touch," said Mr Follis.

"This body will ultimately be answerable to the Lord Chancellor because he will appoint its chairman.

"As the Lord Chancellor is a political appointment, will the legal profession remain independent or be subject to Government interference?"

The point was particularly sensitive, he added, because of the escalating number of challenges to the Government in the form of applications for judicial reviews, and human rights battles.

"This is of constitutional significance. It affects whether we can keep and preserve a truly independent legal profession.

"If the regulating body can lean on lawyers it might compromise their ability to act as a fearless advocate of people who choose to challenge Government," he said.

Setting up a new body to deal with complaints could see the legal profession footing a bill of about £13 million.

"The Law Society did not have a particularly good record of complaints handling and as a result of enormous investment it has greatly improved," said Mr Follis.

"In one sense it is almost a relief to have complaints dealt with by someone else. It's always a difficult issue.

"But setting up a new body and running it will inevitably be more expensive and the cost will be passed on to customers."

The third main area of proposed reform is allowing non-solicitors to own legal practices. At present, legal executives and barristers cannot do so.

"This is the point where we are cautiously optimistic because if it means greater diversity and competition then customers get more choice," said Mr Follis.

But he said there were concerns about conflicts of interest, especially where insurance companies were involved.

"Most personal injury claims are very small insurance claims," said Mr Follis. "If the lawyer's practice was owned by an insurance company he or she might be troubled by going against that company."

Another worry was the impact large corporations adding legal services to their business would have on high street practices.

"The concern we have is that commercial organisations will cherry pick parts of the system like conveyancing, wills and probate, and personal injury claims, and leave the less profitable parts, like legal aid cases, social welfare, and family law to smaller firms."

The devil of the new system, Mr Follis added, would be in the detail.

"We hope our concerns will inform how these new laws are constructed," he said.