Nearly 600 solicitors came to Wembley in search of a goal.

It was a remarkable gathering: worry rather than anger ruled.

Most people were under 45, mainly from small firms and law centres.

The views of those with franchises were not all that different from those without.The shaping and coping with inevitable change, while not diminishing service to clients, seemed to be the common aim.

The biggest single stumbling block seemed to be doubts about the understanding and intentions of the government.

The family lawyers, most of whom appeared to be members of SFLA, were very keen to see mediation approaches applied wherever sensible.

Indeed, they were already doing so, a fact that seemed to be relatively unrecognised in the white paper.

For them, mediation could not take place in a legal vacuum which denied clients access to legal advice when considering any option for the settlement of their matrimonial affairs.The real driver of costs in most matrimonial disputes was issues relating to ancillary relief, rather than the grounds for divorce.

Family lawyers know that it is the animosity and the anxiety which clients have over these matters which so often militates against an earlier agreed settlement which the solicitor would most naturally have pursued.There seemed also within government similarly little understanding that unless full disclosure is obtained of the assets and income of the parties, there can be no hope of achieving a fair result.

All this requires sensitive legal advice, backed by strong legal action where needed.The workshop which looked at Woolf was extremely positive about his proposals, but sceptical about whether government would deliver its part of the package.

There was no reluctance among the solicitors about giving better information on costs.

The sooner the government makes plain its programme of action, the sooner it seemed from that session that the profession would be making its own not inconsiderable investment in modern litigation management.Working with the voluntary sector is part of the everyday experience of solicitors who do legal aid work; this is a huge source of referrals.

Practitioners at Wembley saw no reason why such agencies and law centres should not do more in the housing and welfare fields.

Some practitioners asked me whether the Law Society would alter its own rules to make closer arrangements with such bodies more possible.

They did not see these agencies as potential threats, but rather as partners.Perhaps the remark which struck home most with the Lord Chancellor was one from a practitioner who complained that the green paper seemed to blame solicitors for all the deficiencies in the current scheme.

The fact that over the years the scheme has reached so many people and dealt with so many different causes is a tribute both to government and to solicitors.However, in the view of most of the practitioners there, there were deficiencies in the system which were largely in the government's hands to remedy.

Meanwhile, solicitors were prepared to change.

It was unfair to cast them in any different light because they saw that the changes that were most needed in the system would benefit public and profession alike.The approach to contracts from practitioners was less implacable than I had anticipated.

As the vote showed, there was more support for a sensible block contract system that was widely available than for the extension of standard fees.

Practitioners did not want to see Parliament decide on any new system un til there was more detail about the contracts and especially reliable means in place for judging the quality of the work that solicitors did.Their support for greater use of specialist panels and the development of a Law Society practice unit to help them cope with the change was a surprising, if welcome, spontaneous response to the Lord Chancellor's ideas.Under a system of rolling contracts, backed by a substantial contingency fund, the Lord Chancellor did not believe the money would run out or that arbitrary decisions would be made about cases of equal merit.

A cash limited scheme, where the money never ran out, seemed to be what he appeared to be offering.

He was adamant that the government was not in the business of reducing the legal aid bill.

The profession at Wembley seemed bemused if not wholly cynical about this statement.The message from Wembley seemed to be that without the detail, neither the profession nor the public would be convinced that the opportunity for change was being used to best effect.

For those Council members who were present, the message was that there were issues that the Council could not duck: the profession was reconciled to change but expected that change to be shaped or influenced by its professional body, rather than wholly forced on it and the profession.

I am glad that at least two of the presidential candidates, and one of the vice-presidential candidates, were there to hear these expectations.