On 2 March the Law Society Council will decide in principle on the future arrangements by which the profession might obtain its professional indemnity cover.I have made it clear throughout this debate that my preference would include provision for the profession to obtain indemnity cover in the open market.The options that the Council will debate next week are: a compulsory mutual fund; a mutual fund with the option for any firm to buy cover in the market; and a master policy with the option for any firm to buy cover in the market.

Buying cover in the market onlyIt would be foolish to forecast the decision to be made by 75 Council members who represent all shades of opinion in the profession.

In any event the Council will have to ensure that the effect of the cover proposals protects the public interest.The special general meeting (SGM) of the Society regarding the indemnity issue which has been requisitioned will take place on Wednesday 2 March.People's views may differ on the relevance of the motions.

Nonetheless, the SGM will be a useful opportunity to hear the initial reaction of members of the profession to the Council's decision.Access to justiceThe Society's campaign on legal aid continues, with some successes during consideration of the Bill in the House of Lords.

M ost notable was the Lord Chancellor's indication that he will not pursue his proposal to allow conditional fees in matrimonial property disputes.

This is a welcome concession.The Society has always maintained that conditional fees can assist access to justice, but that they are not a panacea for all cases involving property or money.

Legal aid must remain for poorer and vulnerable clients.

The Society will continue to lobby against the exclusion of personal injury cases from the scope of legal aid.

At the very least, the government should wait until there is objective evidence that the market for after-the-event legal expenses insurance has developed.

That does not yet appear to be the case.

In the early stages of a new market insurers will inevitably 'cherry pick' cases.If, in time, it can be demonstrated that the market has developed sufficiently to ensure that all worthy cases of a particular type will be covered, then it might be acceptable to remove that type of case from legal aid.I met the Lord Chancellor recently to discuss these issues and concerns about the number of contracts that would be awarded.

He indicated that the figure of 3,200 contracts recently cited by the Legal Aid Board was not a target and that it would not be unrealistic to expect between 5000 and 6000 firms to receive family contracts.Restrictions on rights of audienceThe Lord Chancellor also expressed his appreciation of the Society's supportive stance on higher courts rights of audience.

Indeed, it is worth noting that while solicitors have concerns about the Bill, it contains many good provisions that we can support.The Society has made it clear that it will not restrict the right of employed solicitors with higher court rights of audience to exercise them on behalf of their employers.I also wholly reject suggestions that few solicitors so far have gained higher court rights of audience because most solicitors cannot meet the required standards.

This is disingenuous.The present qualification process is protracted, expensive and contains unnecessary barriers.

I welcome the provisions that will enable the Society to approve more accessible, flexible methods of taking up higher court rights of audience while ensuring that proper standards are met.

I know there are solicitors who are waiting to respond to a new scheme.House of Lords ReformAs well as the immediate framework for access to justice, we are also concerned, as solicitors, with the overall constitutional environment in which we participate in the administration of justice, protect citizens' rights and entitlements and advise clients.

The rigour of parliamentary scrutiny has a bearing on the quality of enacted legislation.This is why the Law Society must maintain an interest in House of Lords reform.

However, the Society has no wish to participate in a party political debate on the issue; its concern is to ensure that a reformed second chamber retains proper checks and balances and that such a chamber should have members who have the freedom to consider the detail of legislation free of the constraints of the system of party whips.

It should also have the capacity to force the government of the day occasionally to think twice on proposed measures.Book early for the Law FestivalThe brochure for the Solicitors Law Festival taking place this October in Disneyland, Paris will be published shortly.

I urge solicitors to attend.

The Society has deliberately chosen a family-friendly venue, recognising that solicitors have family responsibilities.

However, this is no lightweight conference.

The programme contains more than 50 sessions covering all the major topics on the profession's agenda and featuring many leading-edge legal and business figures from home and abroad.Already, more than 500 solicitors have pre-registered.

The organisers are confident the event will be a sell-out and advise early booking.