So Kenneth Clarke is the new justice secretary. Not many people saw that one coming. Firstly, because everyone fully expected it to be Dominic Grieve, who had been shadow justice secretary, and secondly, because Clarke himself was presumed to be in line for the business role.But what does it mean for the legal profession?

For those who had spent time and energy courting Grieve and schooling him in the issues affecting the profession, this sudden turn of events must seem more than a tad irritating. Grieve has been handed the attorney general job, but this is a far more limited role, even though it may end up being interpreted more freely than that of Baroness Scotland.

What’s more, Clarke may be a barrister, but it’s been a long time since he practised and he himself has apparently admitted that he has some swotting up to do when it comes to the matters he will be dealing with as justice secretary.

So why did David Cameron pick Clarke for the job?

It seems to have been a result of the coalition government. Whereas choosing a cabinet is normally a fairly straightforward task of slotting the shadow ministers into their relevant posts – though, it should be noted, even Tony Blair chose to mix things up a little when he won his huge majority in 1997 – this time, there are Lib Dems to be accommodated as well.

The secretary of state for business innovation and skills job, which Clarke may have been expecting, was handed instead to the Lib Dems’ Vince Cable. But Ken still needed something meaty. He’s a barrister, so why not give him the lord chancellor gig?

Of course, the fact that Clarke is coming fresh to issues such as the strains on the legal aid budget and the forthcoming legal services reform is not necessarily a bad thing. It is a chance for bodies like the Law Society to play a vital role in informing his views, and one that it will diligently pursue.

And at the end of the day, Clarke is a bigger beast than Grieve. He is a former chancellor who spent nearly ten years as a cabinet minister. If solicitors convince him of the worthiness of their cause on whatever issue, he will be able to stand his ground against, for example, pressure from the Treasury, and he will not be afraid to implement radical reform.

He could be a powerful ally for the profession. But given the vigour with which the Conservative party looks set to pursue its deficit-reducing cuts, one thing is for certain: he will not deliver any more money for legal aid.