At the heart of the Law Society's present difficulties lies one which is greater than all the rest - the communications failure.Ironically, in an era when the Society has raised its own standards, developed work and materials of the highest quality and provided a challenging blueprint for the 1990s for itself and the profession, it has almost completely failed to get its message across to the ordinary solicitor.When a recently elected Council member, talking of the role of the Solicitors Complaints Bureau, accuses the Society of 'encouraging complaints from the public', it makes one despair.Quality initiatives, complaints procedures and management standards all count for very little if people do not think that you are on their side.It should be one of the Society's major goals that every solicitor should be able to point (without prompting) to at least one thing that the Society has done for his or her benefit which has been understood and appreciated.

The question, 'What has the Law Society done for me?' should get a positive response from every solicitor in England and Wales.All new policies and initiatives should have a communications strategy attached to them.

All communications from the Society, at least to the profession at large, should be co-ordinated and strictly controlled.

Too often material coming out of the Society appears random, and often it appears ill-focused and ill-directed.The medium of communications itself should not, however, be the message.

The message must be purposeful as well as being presented attractively.

It will not always be what the profession wants to hear but it should command respect and authority, and be designed to enhance the feeling of worth solicitors have about themselves and the profession as a whole.The network of local law societies is hopelessly inadequate as a communications structure.

There are over 100 such societies.

All fiercely independent, a few are large and encompass most of the local profession as members; some are very small.

Many are completely unrepresentative of local solicitors; in London less than a third of the national Law Society members belong to some of the local societies.

Committees can be even less representative judged by any democratic standards.Yet the Society bases most of its consultation and its communications strategy on this network.

Major papers are sent out 'for consultation' and are seen by sub-committees comprising a small number of the already unrepresentative local committee.In my experience, often only four or five people may be charged with the responsibility of analysing major papers and declaring a view to Chancery Lane.

Little wonder that the Council members do better, having read their papers, to listen to the debate in the Council itself and (quite properly) do not consider that they are mandated for any decisions.Where local representation is strong it is effective, as the societies of Liverpool, Manchester, Birmingham or Bristol will testify.

But elsewhere the Society should focus its communication strategy for the next decade on establishing and building up its regional offices as a national network.You cannot win hearts and minds by pumping out rules, regulations, orders, consultation papers and other material.

Local participation must be engendered by staff in regional offices who must be approachable, knowledgeable and reliable.

The staff should know 'their people' and take trouble for them.

Acting, where necessary, as a support for the local society and for the Council member, they could establish local focal points: talking, arguing, persuading and encouraging the profession at a personal level.I believe all this could be achieved with savings to be made at central office level, but this must be a gradual process, shifting the emphasis from central to regional support.

To an extent, with establishment of the present regional offices this has happened; it must continue.The office-holders and Council members roadshows are a short term, expensive knee-jerk reaction to the communications crisis.

The winning of people is not achieved in this way.

Even if it appears successful, I believe it will be a short term success.I am not advocating expansion but a change in emphasis; a shift in resources.

I have said before that I believe that the Society's great strength is in its dual role of regulator and fighter for law and justice, for the profession and the public.Two recent events have confirmed that view.

One was the overwhelming vote in support of this view, taken recently at the national conference.

The other came from an unexpected source: discussions with the General Medical Council which is in the early days of imposing statutory regulation on another learned profession.

How it would love to be able to speak on behalf of the profession, with the authority that comes from being in control of both the training and disciplinary process and as representative of its members.And what great achievements has the BMA produced, simply as the doctors' trade union? Successfully opposing NHS trusts, prescription charges, internal markets, GP fundholders? Or opposing hospital closures? Or gaining good increases in pay from the government? I think not.Let us be more imaginative with a communications strategy.

A first goal could be to achieve a situation where the average solicitor, uninterested in professional politics, when asked about the Society can say: 'The Law Society? Oh yes, I'm not interested, but they do a good job, it's important stuff for all of us, and I do get value for money.'