At the start of my presidential year in what, I was assured, was the ‘quiet period’, I received two pieces of extremely bad news. The first was that many small firms were being removed from lenders’ panels, and the second was that the family law tender process had resulted in over 1,100 losing the ability to provide family legal aid.

I clearly remember receiving both pieces of news. At the time I was at the American Bar Association meeting in San Francisco with many other international bar leaders. In between my speaking and ceremonial obligations, I was either on the telephone to practitioners devastated by the news, or I was in a series of emergency meetings deciding what could and should be done.

The meetings convened to discuss the family legal aid situation were some of the most difficult that I have attended. We realised that some firms had seized the opportunity to expand and would suffer considerable financial loss if we took action. Others, of course, hoped that we would offer them a lifeline and for others still, any action would be too late.

Sitting above all those considerations, we looked at the bleak picture for clients; distressed families with young children needing extremely technical help from those who know how to handle their needs sensitively, in order to rebuild lives torn apart. This reality guided us and we knew that we could take only one course of action – to challenge the Legal Services Commission and to fight for justice for those individuals.

I spent a lot of time at those hearings and, despite any anxiety at the outcome, my overall feelings were of pride. Pride in the justice system and in my profession.

The decision was handed down orally and took a little over two and a half hours before concluding. The court noted that the Law Society had been motivated by the need to protect the vulnerable. Moreover, they were clearly greatly impressed by those firms which had wanted to expand and been granted the contracts to do so, but nonetheless felt that their expansion was at too great a price to society. Those firms which filed statements in support of the Society’s position epitomise the high ethical standards that our profession strives for.

In what was a packed courtroom, the tension mounted as the judgment was delivered, particularly for the interveners and other firms directly affected. I have sat and waited for many decisions which mean everything to the individuals involved. However, never before have I awaited a judgment where the individuals directly affected numbered tens of thousands and where many would never know or appreciate what a difference this decision would make to them. When Lord Justice Moses did indeed part the Red Sea, the pleasure at the verdict was tinged by the sadness that the LSC had not taken action when it had first realised that the process had led to an outcome it had neither anticipated nor desired.

The court found that the LSC had acted irrationally, unfairly and arbitrarily, and the court declared the tender process unlawful, which compelled the LSC to extend the existing contracts. It was stressed that the solicitors who had been excluded were doing difficult and demanding work for little or no reward; that they offered a quality service; and that, if the LSC had told them in good time what was required, they could have complied with the provisions of the tender. Three and a half hours after entering the courtroom and after submissions on costs and on the remedy, the hearing finally concluded. It was a heartening and important victory for common sense and for justice.

I went from the court straight to a dinner for heads of international bars on the eve of the Opening of the Legal Year. My speech was prepared and I was to talk about the issues that concern all of us, one of which was access to justice and the global struggle to achieve this. I abandoned that speech and instead I told them about the victory and about my pride in my profession, the dedicated legal aid team, our legal team, all of those who submitted evidence and the wider profession, including the City, who offered their support. Above all I dedicated the evening, and the victory, to those men and women who devote their lives to helping those in most need. I would like to thank all of those to whom I refer for demonstrating the unique quality of lawyers, putting the interests of others above our own and protecting the rights and freedoms enjoyed by all.

Coming at the start of a new legal year, and, of course, one that will be fundamental in setting the future direction of the legal profession in this country, this also serves as a timely reminder as to why we are one profession despite our differences. It is our shared sense of purpose that helps to maintain solicitors’ role as a key element underpinning a decent, democratic and lawful society. This, combined with intellectual excellence and professional rigour, gives us a unique platform from which we can make our voices heard and a role in society that few, if any, other professions can match.

However there is still a great deal of work to be done, particularly with the government’s Comprehensive Spending Review coming up. I look to you all for your continued support and your dedication.

Linda Lee is president of the Law Society