The new Year has seen the start of the roadshows.

There are 20, taking us to all parts of England and Wales.

The first, in Exeter, was held on 13 January.

Around 200 solicitors said they would attend, about 160 did.

The Gazette has already carried a report of the session (see [1995] Gazette, 18 January, 4) but for me the outstanding impression was one of friendly concern.

I found an appreciation of the problems we face: about conveyancing, legal aid and the standing of the profession.Conveyancing concerns me too.

It has been the staple income of provincial firms, and by its very stability allowed us to offer other services to the public.

In earlier years it subsidised legal aid.

Competition ended that years ago.

Now we also face increasing demands from mortgage lenders requiring us effectively to guarantee their lending, at no cost to themselves.

This cannot go on.

There are deep divisions of opinion on whether the solution to this and potential conflicts of interest is to prohibit joint representation.

The Council has asked for negotiations with the Council of Mortgage Lenders.I am saddened that an attempt to find a solution to the conveyancing problem has led to a polarisation of opinion on this one issue.

We still need your help on solutions to the wider problems, and views on the other proposals, such as a quality standard.As this roadshow took place in the same week as the Lord Chancellor's speech to the Social Market Foundation seminar, it was not surprising that legal aid was a dominant issue at Exeter.

The Social Market Foundation was the body which published the report suggesting fundholders along the lines of the National Health Service.

We knew the Lord Chancellor was carrying out a fundamental review of legal aid, but this was in secret so we have had to wait for a public pronouncement to know what his thinking was.

Fortunately the Lord Chancellor does not appear to be attracted to fundholding, which was designed for a different type of service.There are a number of aspects of the Lord Chancellor's speech which give us concerns.

The first is that he would like to cap the legal aid fund.

We all accept the government has to estimate the expenditure for each year.

Most of us accept that there cannot be unlimited spending on legal aid.

But that is not an acceptance of the principle of capping.

Capping offers no solution to any of the problems.

It will lead to discrimination between applicants depending on where they live and the time of the year their application was made.

Those solicitors who are involved in welfare benefits work will know what happened when the rules on grants for exceptional items for those on benefits were capped.

People with urgent needs found that the money had run out.Action taken during the last few years, whilst unwelcome, has already reduced spending on legal aid.

Standard fees in criminal cases, a reduction in hourly rates in civil cases, changes in eligibility will all redu ce the cost.

The rising cost of payments on account stops next year, when the maximum of 75% is reached.

There will be an increasing repayment as cases are concluded.What is needed is a reduction in the cost and complexity of litigation.

This will not be achieved by artificial limits on the costs chargeable, even less by fixed fees, but by looking at what is really needed to enable the court to arrive at a just decision.

As to the remainder of the Lord Chancellor's speech, we will have to wait for further details.In the meantime we are working on our own proposals for the future of legal aid.

We hope to run a conference on 5 June to consider our proposals, the Lord Chancellor's and the Labour party's, which should all be available by then.

I would be very wary of any proposals which limit the choice of solicitor.The standing of the legal profession, like that of all other professions, has diminished during the last decade or so.

I read recently an article by the president of the American Bar Association, George Bushnell.

He took issue with the obsession about professional standing.

His view was that we should get on with the job of representing the client and all would be well.I am not so sure.

The standing of the profession is a factor in weighing the merits of our proposals.

So is the standing of the Society within the profession.

That is why I was so keen to get out to meet the members, to emphasise the importance of working together.I am sure you are as fed up as I am at reading leading articles in quality newspapers which assume that lawyers are in control of the rules of court, have freedom to conduct cases without any restraint from the courts or the Legal Aid Board, and are paid for legally aided cases at the rates City of London solicitors charge their clients.

I have made a point of taking up every case with the newspaper concerned but I sometimes think I am battling on my own.

I am always encouraged by reading the contributions of other solicitors.

Thanks for your help.In December I attended both the civil and the criminal higher court advocacy courses.

As my session was the final one on both courses I was able to stay for the announcement by the course leader in each case that all the candidates had been approved.

Although not as many as we would like, they join a growing band of solicitor advocates.The course is not easy, and the artificiality forced on us during the approval process tends to heighten the tension.

Congratulations to all the candidates, and particularly to the one person who attempted, successfully, both the civil and the criminal course.