For the last year I have been heavily involved in discussions with the Lord Chancellor's Department over prescribed rates for non-matrimonial civil legal aid work.

Those discussions culminated in the Lord Chancellor's letter to the President last month (see [1993] Gazette, 17 December, 5).

Prescribed rates for non-matrimonial civil legal aid had caused the profession much concern a nd worry during the course of the year.

Towards the end of 1992 the Lord Chancellor confirmed his departure from the original proposal which was for prescribed rates on a cost neutral basis.During the course of the year a number of valuable concessions were made.

Importantly, prescribed rates are only to apply where the costs are actually paid by the legal aid fund to cases in which the certificates are issued after the introduction of the regulations.Whilst I do not welcome the development of prescribed rates, I do believe that the revised package is a significant improvement over that which was originally on offer.The terms of the discretion to exceed the prescribed rates, which provide for enhanced rates of up to 100% in the county court and up to 200% in the High Court, are quite different from those in the existing prescribed rates for criminal and matrimonial legal aid.

There is no doubt that there is a framework in which substantially higher rates can and should be achieved in the more complex cases and in cases conducted with particular skill or competence.I do hope that the profession will ensure that the framework is developed and enhanced rates are argued for whenever justified so that senior and experienced practitioners continue to do this work.In introducing his proposals the Lord Chancellor made it clear that he was concerned only with controlling the expenditure of the legal aid fund and that he was not intending to influence private and inter-partes rates.

As a profession we must ensure that taxing authorities do not begin to treat these prescribed rates as the norm for cases other than those for which the legal aid fund is actually paying.Among my regrets is that the opportunity was not taken to introduce a higher prescribed rate for senior practitioners and encourage solicitor advocacy by providing an enhanced advocacy rate.

In cases where the legal aid fund is not paying the bill, taxing authorities are required to apply the ord 62 criteria.

I appeal again to local law societies to ensure that district judges are kept up to date with local expense rates so that the principles of Johnson v Reed Corrugated can be applied and realistic hourly rates allowed.1994 will see the development of the novel concept of conditional fees.

The initial proposal from the government was to introduce these fees on the basis of a maximum uplift of 10%, later raised to 20%.

It was in August of last year that the Lord Chancellor indicated that his proposals would in fact allow an uplift of 100%.

I welcome that decision but I remain firmly of the view that conditional fees should not be regarded in any way as an alternative to legal aid or as justifying any departure from the Lord Chancellor's commitment to restore legal aid eligibility levels if possible.

The Society is currently working on the preparation of guidance for the profession.

It is expected that one of the most difficult aspects of the scheme, the obligation to pay the other side's costs in the event of failure, will be overcome, as the Society is in the process of negotiating an affordable insurance policy to enable clients, through their solicitors, to insure against losing a claim.

Hence the new term 'after the event' insurance.1994 will see the launch of two new Law Society panels - the personal injury panel and the medical negligence panel - together with the promotion of the new version of the ALAS scheme - 'the accident line'.For some years now I have favoured the recognition and the promotion of specialisation where necessary to assist the public and I am delighted that practitioners have responded so positively to the personal injury panel.

Some practitioners have expressed the view that the questionnaire is unnecessarily searching.

I do not agree.

The panel must enable members of the public to identify true expertise and for that to be achieved the criteria must be exacting.

If the questionnaire were not searching it would be necessary to interview all applicants for the panel which would be more time consuming and expensive.The combined effect of the panel and launch of the accident line should be to increase public awareness about the potential for accident claims and the availability of expert advice.

I think that there is real scope for practice development in this field.In parallel with the proposals for conditional fees, a consultation paper has been issued by the government with proposals for a no cost regime for small personal injury claims.

The civil litigation committee will be responding to that paper this month.

I do hope that the government will rethink the planned approach which, in my view, will put plaintiffs at a significant disadvantage and will place more burdens on the already stretched county court system and ultimately benefit only the insurance companies at the expense of victims of accidents.I see no real benefit to the legal aid fund in net terms.

Personal injury work provides enormous value for money to the fund with a significant majority of cases being successful and resulting in no claim for costs against the fund at the end of the day.1993 saw the presentation of the Heilbron/Hodge report which I hope will form the basis for discussions for improvement.

I have a personal plea for an early assimilation of High Court and county court procedures.

I would like to see the introduction of a simple form county court summons equivalent to a generally endorsed writ well ahead of any more substantive changes arising from the report's proposals.Some opportunities then for 1994.

What else should we press for? The top priority must be to restore legal aid.

I repeat our earlier appeal to the government to reverse the eligibility cuts at the earliest opportunity.