The Law Society's Justice Denied campaign has certainly caught the attention of the Lord Chancellor, Lord Irvine, and his Minister of State, Geoff Hoon.

They both mounted a considerable attack against the advertisements last week claiming that they were untruthful.Indeed, in a letter addressed to me, leaked to a number of newspapers before I received it, the Lord Chancellor accused me of propagating untruths and demanded apologies.It is tempting, of course, to address the side issue of why a Lord Chancellor would dispute the right of a body such as the Law Society to campaign by implying the Society was lying.

It does not sit well with the image of a listening government.In contrast, the Law Society has determinedly stuck to the issues in the campaign.

Its advertisements concentrate on a number of situations in which legal aid is now available as of right, provided that the cases satisfy the ordinary merits test.The Society stated its concern that there will be less access to justice for victims of these kinds of cases in the future.

This might be because they will not be able to afford or be able to get legal expenses insurance to support a conditional fee arrangement for a personal injury case.

It might be because there are no firms with legal aid contracts in a victim's locality and he or she might have to travel some distance to get help.

It might be because the money has run out in the relevant area or their category of case had not been deemed a priority.Lord Irvine summed up the problem with considerable foresight back in 1996 before he became Lord Chancellor: 'Cost capping...

is unattractive in principle, because legal aid would cease to be a benefit to which a qualifying individual is entitled.

It would, in practice, become a discretionary benefit, available at bureaucratic disposal, a benefit which would have to be disallowed when the money ran out, or when another category of case was given preference.

Legal aid would cease to be a service available on an equal basis nationally, because cases would go forward in one region where identical cases in others, of equal merit, would not'.The core issue between the Society and the Lord Chancellor is this: since the campaign started, Lord Irvine has repeatedly stated that legal aid will be available to victims of the kinds of cases featured in the advertisements.

The Lord Chancellor has made this point in a four-page press release in response to the Law Society campaign and on radio, and his LCD Minister, Geoff Hoon, has said so in letters to me.

Why then, will they not state it in the one place that matters most - on the face of the Access to Justice Bill?The whole point of the Society's campaign is to highlight the impact that the Bill could have on disadvantaged groups.

The Society is concerned that people will be denied access to justice as a result of this Bill.

If the examples in the advertisements are untrue as the Lord Chancellor maintains, the one way of putting the matter beyond dispute is to amend the Bill so that it contains four essential guarantees:-- that legal aid clients are put in the same position as privately paying clients;-- that legal aid will be available for personal injury cases where people cannot reasonably get or afford legal expenses insurance;-- that the budget for civil legal aid is adequate and ring-fenced;-- and that safeguards to protect disadvantaged groups such as the disabled will be stipulated.Sideswipes have also been made that the Society is resistant to change and that the advertising campaign is all about solicitors protecting their earnings.

These points no doubt raised a hollow laugh among legal aid practitioners who have seen little or no increase in legal aid rates during the past five years.Meanwhile, solicitors' overheads, as calculated by the Lord Chancellor's Department, have increased by 17% and legal aid practitioners have coped with enormous changes in the legal aid scheme.These government points regarding lawyers do not explain away the 17 other respected organisations representing consumers and disadvantaged groups which have concerns about the Bill.

Since the campaign started additional groups have come forward.The government has offered no comment on the Harris poll of 96 Labour backbench MPs which showed that two thirds of them said the government's proposals would restrict access to justice.

Likewise, it has been silent about the Harris public opinion poll which showed that nine in ten people questioned supported legal aid being available for people on low incomes who could not afford to pay for it themselves.The Access to Justice Committee in the House of Commons continues its detailed scrutiny of the Bill.

It is disappointing that the purpose clause, which would have provided the first of the four guarantees, has been voted down.

Nonetheless, the government could accept the need to put other important guarantees in the Bill and, of course, there are other opportunities at third reading.

The Society is continuing to lobby and brief members of the committee about amendments which would achieve the necessary changes.Access to justice for poor and vulnerable people is an important right in a fair and democratic society.

The government and some sections of the media can be as cynical as they like, but the Law Society will not be deflected from standing up for people's rights.

It goes to the heart of the role the legal profession should play in society.It is a role that the Law Society and solicitors will continue to play as long as access to justice is an issue.