It would be difficult to imagine a Bar Council Chairman who has more empathy with solicitors than the 1996 model.One of the first statements David Penry-Davey QC makes to interviewers is that he has 'a very high regard for solicitors'.

Much of that opinion is based on his upbringing.

Mr Penry-Davey's father was a prominent high street solicitor, practising on the south coast for many years where he was president of the Hastings and District Law Society.Penry-Davey senior made a large impression on his son, triggering his interest in the law and, later, sending him his first brief, defending a guilty plea of stealing an empty coke bottle.Obviously, the father never pressed his son towards one side of the profession over the other.

In fact, recalls this year's Chairman, because of his own interest in advocacy, his father was pleased that his son ended up going to the Bar and continued to carve out a highly successful career as a barrister.

Called in 1965, after reading law at King's College, London, Mr Penry-Davey became a Crown Court recorder in 1986, took silk two years later and was leader of the south eastern circuit from 1992 to 1995.The issue of relations with solicitors -- especially in the post Courts and Legal Services Act world -- is one of the main planks of Mr Penry-Davey's platform for the Bar Council.

'It is absolutely essential that relations between the Bar and solicitors should be as good as possible,' he says.In practical terms, for Mr Penry-Davey, improving relations between the two branches of the profession means promoting the service industry mentality at the Bar.

He intends to follow up last year's Bar Council management training course initiative with the publication this year of a series of practice management guidelines for chambers.

He describes the measure as demonstrating the Bar's belief in 'the importance of an effective quality service being given to solicitors'.The guidance focuses on communication -- historically an ingredient which has often been lacking in solicitor-barrister relations.

Mr Penry-Davey acknowledges that late briefs are still the main bug-bear, but he insists that the new guidelines will also address wider issues.'Barristers should not make unrealistic promises.

I told a group of pupils recently: "If you assure a solicitor that you will have a set of papers back by a certain date then make sure you jolly well do it.

And if something goes desperately wrong, do something about it early rather than leaving it to the last minute.'Fairly elementary advice, he admits, but the message still needs to be driven home.

'The old concept of keeping the solicitor waiting to impress him with how busy you are -- well, I hope it has now gone for ever.' While Mr Penry-Davey is keen to build bridges and smooth the working relationship between solicitors and barristers, he is ironically facing significant internal rows within the Bar.A new complaints system -- which will for the first time provide clients with the right to claim compensation for inadequate professional services -- has sparked a furious row at the Bar.

Feelings ran so high that a profession-wide vote was forced by opponents of the proposed scheme.

When the votes were tallied earlier this year, the scheme had been approved by a relatively comfortable 55% majority.But emotions are still strong and the Bar leadership was last week facing calls for another vote.

What has particularly enraged some opponents of the complaints scheme is the inclusion of the employed Bar in the poll.Mr Penry-Davey adamantly defends both the complaints system and the rights of employed barristers to have their say on it.

'In the past, we have not been able to give any redress for work which fell well below the required standard.

That was not right.'Likewise, I am very much of the one profession point of view.

We are all practising barristers.

We are bound by the same code of conduct and ethics.'Despite the internal wrangling, Mr Penry-Davey maintains that the Bar is in a fine state of health.

He points out that during his 30-year professional career the Bar has grown from an elite group of about 2000 practitioners to one of more than 8500 today.

And he is reluctant to forecast a levelling off -- or indeed a decline -- in numbers.

He points out that during the last five years doom-sayers have been incorrectly predicting a dramatic fall in the number of barristers at the independent Bar.But he acknowledges that there are key factors looming which could have a significant impact on the size of the profession.

The first -- which will also be felt by solicitors -- is the potential effect of the government's reform proposals for legal aid.

The Bar remains united with the Law Society in opposing block contracting and financial caps on the legal aid budget.

Mr Penry-Davey maintains there is a significant public interest point.

'Attempts to introduce absolute caps in the criminal field -- if they are going to result in people being left without representation -- are not only highly undesirable, they may also put the government in breach of its international treaty obligations.'The other main factor affecting numbers at the Bar is the potential for an increased number of solicitor advocates appearing in the higher courts.

Mr Penry-Davey says he has 'no sense of complacency whatever' over the fact that, so far, there has been a relatively low solicitor take-up of increased audience rights.He is convinced that solicitors and other authorised professionals will eventually take up their expanded rights in significant numbers.

The only way for the Bar to survive in the face of a wave of new advocates, says Mr Penry-Davey, is for barristers to focus on what they do best.Therefore, he views as a non-productive and dangerous distraction recent proposals from within the Bar Council to allow barristers direct access to lay clients and for the forming of partnerships with other barristers and with solicitors.

'Currently, we have a competitive edge because our overheads are lower.

With direct lay access, that advantage disappears.

There is also an element of myth about the one-stop shopping for legal services -- the idea that one lawyer instead of two will be cheaper and more efficient.

The same amount of work will always have to be done.'