The idea of a group of young solicitors organising a conference on 'quality of life' would probably elicit a bemused grin from the lay man.Undoubtedly, runs the perceived wisdom, any discussion of quality of life by lawyers must revolve around off-shore investment packages designed to divert the taxman away from huge earnings as well as intense debate over the relative advantages of one country cottage over another.But ask Andy Unger, chairman of the Young Solicitors Group, about quality of life and you get another perspective entirely.

'The reality is very different, and that confused public perception doesn't make it any easier,' he said as the 150-odd delegates dispersed at the end of a conference on the subject, sponsored by the Gazette, in Nottingham last weekend.

'The image of fat-cat lawyers remains a big problem for the whole profession, making it difficult to defend and campaign on certain key issues such as legal aid.

But the reality is that life is very tough for many lawyers.'What emerged at the conference was that economic factors have put paid to the jobs-for-life factor; increased competition has forced lawyers to become more specialised, translating into more routine and mundane working patterns; information technology could eventually reduce the total number of lawyers required by the public; legal aid funds will probably be cash limited; and to cap it all law firms are badly managed, providing little career advice and structure and almost no personal feedback and training.Indeed, Mr Unger, with tongue only half in cheek, painted a fairly grim picture: 'There is no management, no communication, half our work will soon be done by machines, the other half by paralegals and there is no job security at the end of it.'Predictably, some of the early warning statistics have come from the USA.

Studies there show that 35% of lawyers are dissatisfied with their work.

Of 105 occupations, lawyers came top of the pile in experiencing depression.

They were also four times more likely to be depressed than the overall population and a quarter of them said they felt inadequate and inferior in personal relationships.

Indeed, nearly half said they did not spend sufficient time with their families and more than half said they wanted more time for personal pursuits.Back on this side of the Atlantic, there are signs of similar distress.

Jacqueline Davis, a guidance officer with the professional ethics unit at the Law Society, began the conference by telling the delegates that she and her colleagues were handling an ever increasing number of 'stress related' queries.

Indeed, it was not uncommon for officers to receive up to 60 telephone calls daily.While many of those in trouble are sole practitioners, lawyers in bigger firms too are facing increasing difficulties.

According to the organisational structure gurus at the conference, the core problem is an almost complete lack of modern management skills in the upper echelons of law firms.Catherine Berney, a solicitor turned management consultant, points a finger at the adversarial mentality which pervades legal training and practice and then seeps into the management structures.

Senior and managing partners, she says, rely too heavily on simple maxims such as 'cope or quit' and 'survival of the fittest' when it comes to dealing with stress symptoms exhibited by their assistants or junior partners.Part of the problem, says Liverpool University professor Avrom Sherr, is down to a simple but crucial equation: 'If the quality of life at law firms for quite a few is relatively bad, it might well be because the quality of life for a smaller group at the top is very good.'Those duel factors of adversarial psycho logy and top level job satisfaction have combined to slow any progress towards modern management techniques at law firms.

Jane Herring, head of personnel at Boots, told delegates the legal profession was a good decade if not more behind the retail industry in the delicate area of employee job satisfaction.It was a point supported by employment law specialist Janet Gaymer.

A leading partner at City firm Simmons & Simmons, Ms Gaymer was one of the few 'managers' at the conference.

She pointed out that flexible working schedules were still relatively unheard of at most big law firms.

For example, only 1% of lawyers have struck formal home-working arrangements and part-time or job-share deals are still in their infancy.Panellists and delegates also bemoaned what was viewed as nothing more than lip-service paid by managing partners to the implementation of more flexible working arrangements.

Indeed, there was said to be one woman who described herself as the first City partner to strike a part-time deal with her firm.

But the firm's definition of a part-time schedule was 8.30am to 5pm in the evening with no lunch break.Ultimately, however, it could be new technology that shakes the structure of the legal profession ever more violently.

Roger Smith, director of the Legal Action Group, predicted that the changes the profession had experienced over the last 20 years would seem a tea party compared with what lay in store.Again, back in the USA, there are already experiments with bringing the law down to street level.

One pilot scheme in Arizona involves punters punching in details of their proposed divorce into a cash dispenser-style hole in the wall.

The machine provides simple information on how to initiate and complete the process - all without even whispering the word lawyer.And when lawyers do fit into the equation, cases are frequently 'unbundled' in the USA.

In other words, where clients historically would present a lawyer with a whole problem, they will increasingly do much of the work themselves or with the help of paralegals and bring only the more complicated aspects to the lawyer's desk.As far as airing the issues and igniting debate, the conference was a relative success.

But the delegate profile was a very young one - mostly trainees and recently qualified solicitors.

The sort of people who are victims of poor management and who are relatively powerless in forcing through quick improvements.Missing was representation from the senior ranks of the profession.

But, as Mr Unger explains, that is for next time.

This conference was the beginning of a debate that his group intends to continue.That some action is required cannot be in doubt.

One of the most telling moments of the weekend came when Torben Schon of the European Young Bar Association read a response to a recent EYBA questionnaire from a young female English solicitor.Her job, she said plaintively, was thoroughly dissatisfying.

Her supervising partner provided little direction and no positive feedback and the work itself was so repetitive that 'a trained monkey' could easily get to grips with it.At that rate, Chancery Lane might be well advised to create a Trained Monkey Group.

But would there be a minimum peanut allocation?