It is over a month since I took office but the letters continue to pour in.

They come from a variety of firms, urban and country, large and small.

Nearly all of them offer support and encouragement.

Most contain some unkind references to the ancient regime and helpful advice: 'Watch out for the Sir Humphries,' 'Make sure they don't drown you in paper,' or jocularly (one assumes) 'Close it all down.'Yes, one gets the message.

It is exhilarating to receive so many good wishes, to be the object of so much goodwill.

But doubts and apprehension succeed exhilaration as I realise the extent to which I am the repository of the profession's hopes and expectations.I was elected following a political style campaign complete with manifestos, hustings, press releases and soundbites.

Having been elected like a politician I am now, like a politician, expected to deliver.And a President has only nine months in which to deliver before standing for re-election (something which has never been done before but which I hope to do).

How, then, do I intend to spend the next year? The President, of course, has no power to legislate.

That lies with the elected Council of the Law Society.

In the past, the Council has (rightly or wrongly) been thought unresponsive to solicitors' fundamental problems and concerns.

While conveyancing fees have plummeted and high street practices have collapsed, it has busied itself with the next tranche of training regulations or contemplated the weighty question of kite mark accreditations.It is hard to exaggerate the extent to which this perceived insouciance has enraged the profession judging, at any rate, from the letters I have received.The remedy is in the Council's hands.

During the next 12 months it must concern itself not with its own but with the profession's preoccupations.At the end of 12 months I would like to stand with the Council and list the following achievements:-- We have done everything within our power to re-establish an enforceable fee scale for domestic conveyancing.

By 'everything in our power' I do not count discussion papers demonstrating the impossibility of doing anything useful.

One sanction for failure to observe a recommended fee scale would be via an increase in the indemnity insurance premium.

The justification for this would be that if a firm persistently undertakes work at uneconomic rates it is inherently probable that it is cutting corners with future adverse consequences for the indemnity fund.-- The profession has re-established its right to control the number of new entrants and trainees.

It is a simple absurdity that legal practice course providers should be allowed to turn out annually over 3000 graduates for whom training places simply do not exist.-- The government's legal aid green paper has been seen off.

The proposals for competitive block contracting would be a disaster for the profession.

But our public campaign must emphasise the extent to which it will be a disaster for the public also.-- The cost of practice: effective steps were taken to reduce the cost of professional indemnity insuranc e.

This is the largest burden.

But there are others which have actually been created by Chancery Lane itself.

To a young person thinking of becoming a solicitor one is tempted to reply: 'Don't.

Set up as a continuing education course provider; or as a purveyor of accreditations; or as a consultant in practice management standards.

That's where the real money lies.'-- The Solicitors Complaints Bureau was reorganised.

There is now general recognition that no title should include the word 'complaints'.

Possibly the reformed body could be known as 'The Law Society's client care section'.

That name would be both client and solicitor friendly.

It would also be more honest in recognising that complaints are, in fact, dealt with by the Law Society, or a Law Society agency.

Any reorganisation would aim to achieve a significantly reduced volume of complaints handled as a result with greater speed and efficiency.

The present workload of the complaints bureau creates an impossible burden for its staff.-- The Law Society itself was on its way to becoming a much tighter ship.

I believe that this could be achieved without any compulsory redundancies and without any loss of efficiency.

The substantial savings which in my view could be found would release money for activities of manifest usefulness and which the profession would welcome.

It is essential, for instance, that the Law Society take vigorous steps to confront the public's negative perception of lawyers.

This should be done through a carefully thought out advertising campaign.

It is true that years ago we did mount a campaign which was judged naff and unproductive.

That is an argument not for abandoning advertising altogether but for doing it better in future.All this amounts to a very specific programme.

Some parts of it will be easier to achieve than others.

In any event it will in, say, six months' time, be possible to assess what genuine steps forward had been made.

If the programme is achieved whether wholly or in part the profession might even find itself cheering its representatives in Chancery Lane.

What a novel phenomenon that would be! And even if it is not achieved we will be applauded for trying.I should, I suppose, conclude this piece with a disclaimer.

I was, of course, elected in opposition to the Council's official candidate and I am in a sense, therefore, an anti-Pope preaching false doctrines.

For the moment I am speaking for myself alone.

I hope I am not too optimistic in hoping that before long the anti-Pope and College of Cardinals will be seen to be working in harmony.