Lawyers should be able to lend money to their clients to pay their own fees, says the Law Society of Scotland.

Worried by legal aid cuts to come, the solicitors' body believes such credits could help to fund civil court actions which would not otherwise take place.

However, its proposal, mooted as part of a wider as part of a wider discussion paper on the future of legal aid has sparked a backlash from frontline practitioners who fear potential conflicts of interest.

Writing in today's Herald, employment law specialist Stephen Smith of The Glasgow Law Practice, said: "Lawyers tend to meet clients when they are likely to be upset, embarrassed, or at a low ebb financially - that tends to be when they are most in need of sound legal advice.

"It's not the best time, however, for clients to take long-term financial decisions."

Mr Smith suggests any number of scenarios when a lawyer could find his or her interests in getting their firm's loan back may not coincide with the interests of his or her client.

He writes: "Under the reforms proposed, imagine a lawyer has "loaned" (i.e. gambled) his or her firm's money for the fees to the client, perhaps even staked the hearing fee of £1200 as well, and wins the case. Guess what happens if the employer doesn't pay and goes bust?

"If the Law Society's aim was to contribute to a system where only employers will have lawyers representing them, then their proposals are absolutely fine."

Mark Thorley, convener of the Law Society of Scotland civil legal aid committee and one of the discussion paper's authors, stressed that loans were already available for clients.

He said such a funding mechanism could be expected to help those hit by what most in the industry expect to be inevitable cuts in legal aid.

Mr Thorley said: "If eligibility levels for legal aid are to be reduced, with public funding targeted on individuals who are least able to pay, we need to ensure that affordable options remain as an alternative to legal aid.

"Legal insurance and loan schemes already exist and we think these could be expanded to help people who are not eligible for legal aid.

"These are often offered by third party organisations or through an associated company so would not affect the relationship between a client and their solicitor.

"Under an existing loan scheme we are aware of, the client must obtain advice from an independent solicitor who takes them through the loan documentation and not the client's own solicitor nor a solicitor in the same firm, which offers client protection.

"Assessing the risks and merits of a case, and managing expenditure, is part of the process between clients and solicitors, regardless of the funding arrangements in place.

"As with any funding option, it is crucial that the client understands the arrangement, the costs, and the impact on any final award.

"However, the ability to fund cases in this way can be a significant benefit to individuals who may not otherwise be able to pursue a case."

The Law Society has also suggest a state-funded loan system - and says it would like to see a secure funding model developed for Scotland's network of law centres.

Such centres, however, were not impressed by the paper's suggestion to remove huge areas of law from legal aid, including financial-only divorce, property disputes, personal injury claims, debt, breach of contract and employment law.

Mike Dailly, Solicitor at Govan Law Centre, said: "This suggestion would severely restrict access to justice for those who most need it in Scotland. In our view and experience, this is a socially regressive proposal that would penalise the most vulnerable and disadvantaged people in our society, taking Scotland backwards in time by more than half a century, to a pre-1950 era when there was no civil legal aid."