Equality of opportunity was a theme which I identified early in my presidential year.

And I continue to be extremely troubled by the plight of many young people whose prospects of entering the legal profession are limited not by lack of ability but by the lack of funding for the professional stage of training.

If we are to aspire to having a profession, and ultimately a judiciary, which is broadly representative of the society which it serves, then proper funding arrangements must be reinstated to ensure that those with ability can have the opportunity to join the legal profession.A few weeks before Christmas, with Robert Owen, chairman of the Bar and Hannah Wiskin, immediate past chair of the Trainee Solicitors Group, I visited Kim Howells, the parliamentary under secretary of education, to outline these concerns and to argue for funding arrangements.

We, with the Bar, clearly need to develop imaginative suggestions for an approach to funding.

That work has already begun.The Law Society continues to work hard on lobbying the government regarding its proposals for the reform of legal aid.

While conditional fees appear to be working well in extending access to justice for the middle classes in personal injury claims, this does not mean they can simply be applied to all civil cases involving damages as a substitute for legal aid.

The Law Society has long supported the extension of conditional fees but the government must realise that mainstream personal injury litigation is a special case with very high success rates.

That is why it has been possible to put in place cost effective after-the-event insurance.

This simply cannot be replicated in other areas of litigation at affordable level s.But we have to be creative in our approach to these issues and we have to suggest measures by which the government can achieve its goals without embarking on the risky strategy which would result in deprivation of access to justice.

That is why we have worked on developing our proposals for a conditional legal aid fund.Just before Christmas I wrote to the Lord Chancellor with our proposals which combine the best elements of conditional fees and legal aid.

For the first time this scheme accepts that legal aid lawyers would act on a conditional fee basis with the Legal Aid Board continuing to fund the disbursements.

We have suggested that initially this should apply only in mainstream personal injury cases where conditional fees have already been demonstrated to work.

Other types of claim could be brought in as experience with conditional fees develops.

Because this scheme would be almost self funding, it would be easier to make eligibility for assistance more widely available.

That would strengthen public confidence in legal aid.

These proposals have attracted a great deal of favourable comment and I look forward to constructive discussions about them with the government in the coming weeks.On 22 December just when I thought it was safe to begin to wind down for Christmas there was a sudden announcement by the Treasury of proposals for major changes to the method of tax assessment of partnership profits.

These proposals would have a significant effect on many firms.

The proposed switch to assessment of work in progress could lead to unfair taxation.

Even worse, there would be a catching-up payment which would amount to a windfall tax.I regard this as a priority issue and on 7 January I established a working party under my chairmanship with the Vice-President, Michael Matthews, and Ron Downhill the chairman of the Society's revenue law committee.

We have already met with Inland Revenue officials and I have written to the Lord Chancellor pointing out the serious impact this change would have on the viability of solicitors' firms and thus potentially on the public's access to justice.I have written to senior partners of all firms requesting that where they have taken advice on the impact on the firm, they share that advice with us to help us make the fullest and most persuasive submissions.Last week, Geoff Hoon, parliamentary secretary to the Lord Chancellor's Department, indicated the government's commitment to revising restrictions on rights of audience for employed solicitors and to reform the process of granting such rights.

I welcome that commitment and I have already written to Geoff Hoon restating our support for making the whole process less cumbersome and restrictive for all solicitors.I am glad to say that 'let's kill all the lawyers' does not always work as a publicity tactic.

Like many in the profession, I was astounded when I heard the Home Secretary, Jack Straw, on the radio last Thursday morning, criticising the Law Society for failing to regulate solicitors who were providing shoddy immigration advice.

The facts as emerged in the media later that day, were somewhat different.

The Law Society has been at the forefront of the campaign to outlaw cowboy immigration advisers.In the field of immigration advice, solicitors have been among the few groups who have maintained and improved ethical and professional standards.

For example, we are developing an immigration law accreditation scheme that will allow clients to identify a solicitor with the necessary specialist knowledge and skill to provide a high quality service and have produced best practice guidelines.The unsubstantiated suggestion that 38 firms of solicitors have acted improperly was especially irritating.

For years the Law Society has been asking the Home Office to give us the names of any solicitor it believes has acted unprofessionally, so that we can take action.

To date, the Home Office has not supplied the information.Nonetheless, the publication of the Home Office's consultation paper is welcome and long overdue.

The Law Society will carefully consider the paper and will respond constructively.But we will also continue to rebut swiftly, unjustified criticism of the profession.