Towards the close of 1995, the Law Society's President, Martin Mears, repeatedly attacked the Bar's equality code in a manner which raises an issue, not only about the code itself, but also about how Bar Council and Law Society officers should deal with each other's 'domestic issues'.

It is this last point which led to the frosty relations Mr Mears feels he has had recently with the Bar.I am sure there is no disagreement that discrimination is wrong.

Lawyers should condemn it as we should any form of injustice.

But it is also bad business.

It stops us recruiting and keeping the people we need.

It costs money and takes up management time.The Law Society's own research, conducted with the Policy Studies Institute, shows that the Bar's equality policies of recent years have worked.The Bar equality code is there to give practical guidance to barrister's chambers on what is good equal opportunity practice.It is easy to ridicule, cheaply and out of context, the advice given in any guide like this.

But anyone who practises in the field of discrimination will recount legion examples of employers found guilty of discrimination, not through a malicious desire to discriminate, but because their unconscious prejudices and preconceptions have been displayed in their method of interviewing or treatment of employees, prospective or otherwise.As for harassment -- which is only one part of the code -- the point is not whether 40%, or 14%, or 4% of women are at risk of some level of harassment; the point is that any is wrong.

The fact remains that men do not suffer the kind of unwanted attention that many women experience and so do not understand that there is a problem.

Most women keep silent about it because complaining usually damages them.

Anyone who does not believe this needs to be tackled should have heard the telling testimony from young lawyers given at last year's women lawyers conference, organised by the Bar and the Law Society.The Bar's code, extensively 'road tested' over two years and the subject of detailed consultation with the profession, attempts an objective assessment of what sort of behaviour is offensive.

It also tries to provide some practical solutions to the problem for a pupil who, for example, cannot complain for fear of damaging her chances of a permanent place.

'Safe havens' are no more than helping to find another chambers for a woman in an extreme situation -- which fortunately is very rare.The pity is not that Mr Mears and I seem to disagree on these points -- each is entitled to his own view -- it is that he should have spent so much time and energy on vilifying those who are his natural allies.

Not interfering in each other's domestic business makes it easier to stand together on those issues where there are real risks to the profession as a whole, such as the dangerous legal aid green paper proposals.Would it not be better to work together for the good of the profession, rather than to court publicity with an ill-advised attack on a subject which is no business of the Law Society, namely, the equality code which the Bar applies to itself?