CANDIDATES FOR PRESIDENT-- By now, most of you will have received the candidates' manifestos.

In mine, I have tried to analyse what is wrong with the Law Society and how it may be remedied.

I do not intend to cover the same ground again, but instead want to remind you what this is all about.It is not a game.

It is not about personal ambition, 'politics' or internal squabbling.

It is a serious battle for the soul of the profession.

Ignore the trivialisation and personal slights you read in the legal press and, to a disappointing degree, in some of the manifestos.The fundamental question at the heart of the battle over the last six years is: 'Do you want a Law Society which protects its members and looks after their interests or not?' And by 'looking after our interests', I do not mean crude trade unionism.

I mean a responsible, adult organisation which accepts that we are part of the wider community, that we do have duties to the public at large, but that these duties have to be balanced with our own rights as individuals.

Individuals with personal responsibilities to our own families and with the right to be allowed to organise our working lives, within reason, in the way which suits us.'But the Law Society is irrelevant to me.

Why should I bother?' The Society may appear irrelevant, but it is not.

It sets the rules which govern your entire working life, from training to retirement and everything in between.

By the Society's continuing control of indemnity insurance, whether your firm can afford to stay open.

By the success or failure of its negotiations with government and others, whether your field of work survives or is lost.

It can end or damage your career by the way it handles complaints.

Its behaviour affects the publi c image of our profession and therefore how our friends and clients perceive us.

Like ill-health or accident, at some stage the Society will directly affect your life.Whether you vote or not decides if that effect is benign or malignant.Six years ago, I started my campaign to change the Law Society.

The reason was because it seemed to have abandoned whole sections of the profession.

At that time, at the highest levels, some staff and Council members openly said small firms were an embarrassment, had no future and the sooner they shut the better.

And by 'shut', they meant 'go bust'.

Six years ago, the same 'elder statesmen' were openly saying that conveyancing was not real law and that solicitors should stop doing it.The problems with legal aid are not new.

Eight years ago, the Society accepted a zero pay rise for the first time.

The government immediately realised that solicitors would continue to do the work even without a rise.

So the following year they did the same.

Then again.

And again.

The Society showed itself to be weak and we have been suffering the consequences ever since.

It is why, for all the brave words, the fight in respect of franchising has not been successful and until we as a profession do show we have some back-bone, it will continue to be unsuccessful.

Except for the favoured few mega-firms.And there is the problem of balance.

The Society employs 900 staff, 500 of those at the Office for the Supervision of Solicitors.

Fourteen in 'human resources' looking after the staff's interests.

It employs only one person to look after remuneration issues affecting the entire profession.

One person to look after all conveyancing issues.

One person to advise the entire profession on IT.

There are more people maintaining the Law Society's buildings than are involved in looking after the interests of the entire profession.For six years, I have tried to bring in change.

To persuade those in power to put the interests of the profession at the top of the agenda.

To shift resources away from irrelevancies into providing real practical help for members.

They have been turbulent years.

Mainly because the opposition to change has been pretty relentless.

That turbulence could have been ended at any time by my giving up the struggle.

But to do so would have left the profession at the mercy of people who I genuinely think are seriously misguided.

My conscience never allowed me to do that.

It would have been morally wrong.The word reform is used by everyone, but it means different things to different people.

I believe the Society's primary duty is to represent its members.

If it does not, who else will? As part of that, I believe it makes sense for us to retain control of regulation.

Why give that power to outsiders? I just do not think the present mixed-up way the Society combines those two functions works.

We need to find a better way.

Separate the two functions into separate divisions within the Society and restore a sensible balance.

Both divisions under the democratic control of a Council made up of people who genuinely represent the views of working solicitors.

Michael Napier is the champion of those who want the Society to become a pure regulator.

That is what he means by reform.The present Law Society is out of touch and out of its depth.

We have to radically reform it.

We need new blood.

People whose priority is working to help solicitors.

If you are interested in becoming part of that new structure, let me know.(Robert Sayer is the Council member for central and south Middlesex.)-- MICHAEL NAPIERIt is throwing- out time at the last chance saloon.Two years ago, Robert Sayer promised voters that if elected he would put a stop to 'continual disruptive elections'.

Look what happened.

Not content with one year as President like everyone else, he has pushed himself forward, causing another election this year, ignoring the views and advice of those he has to work with, misjudging the mood of the profession and curiously believing that reform is his personal domain.

Why, having been at the top for the last five turbulent years, should he be given yet another opportunity to try to lead us?So why am I standing for President? Because I believe I can restore stability and bring the strong progressive leadership that is so urgently needed.

No President can work without the support of the Council, as Robert Sayer seems to believe.

The Law Society is like a small public company whose customers and shareholders have lost confidence in the chairman.

I am determined to restore the confidence that has been allowed to slip away.What is my view on a two-year Presidential term? It all depends on the qualities of the individual.

At the Association of Personal Injury Lawyers, I was re-elected president for a second year.

But it would be extremely dangerous for the Law Society to introduce a two-year Presidential term without a safeguard mechanism that could halt the progression of a President who had simply developed a taste for the job.

It is also quite wrong for Robert Sayer to pre-empt the situation by claiming a second year for himself before the constitutional reforms are completed.And where do I stand then on reform at Chancery Lane? By nature I am a progressive reformer.

But reform means more than just a soundbite.

From the outset, I argued that Robert Sayer had got the reform process in the wrong sequence, putting form before substance.It is easy to slash and burn, abolishing committees, but the real challenge is to get the content right -- which is what the Society should really be about if it is to function effectively.

Since March, as chair of the executive committee (inheriting the reforming energy of Kamlesh Bahl), I managed at the April Council meeting to accelerate formation of the new eight-member reform group; and at the May meeting to steer through Council the crucial core trilogy package on regulation, representation and rules -- the reform combination that will actually give the Society its new sense of purpose and modernised shape.Are regulation and representation mutually exclusive? No.

Self-regulation is the hallmark of a profession and must be retained.

Research clearly shows that there is good public appreciation of the Law Society brand which is already being reinforced to give a stronger message.

The idea of splitting the dual functions is at best only superficially attractive.

Such ill thought through arguments of Robert Sayer and Tony Bogan will simply throw out the baby with the bath water and split the profession.How do I see the task ahead? A tough one, but I am determined to deliver on the challenges:Challenges-- To empower firms of all sizes to take the business decisions that are right for them at this time of seismic change in the legal services market;-- To promote solicitors as the focal point for legal advice to all sections of society -- private and public, business and community;-- To protect solicitors' market share against the inroads of unqualified advisers (wills, employment, personal injury, etc);-- To improve standards, reduce complaints and simplify regulation;-- To renew the pride and job sa tisfaction of being a solicitor in a public interest profession that is an integral part of society; and-- To complete phase two of the reform process, refocus the Law Society and deliver a model 21st century professional association.The delivery-- By helping firms take maximum advantage of the e-commerce revolution and to partner with others;-- By raising public awareness that solicitors are accessible, competent, affordable and friendly;-- By levelling outdated restrictions that disadvantage solicitors against commercial competition;-- By simplifying the rules to police with a light but effective touch;-- By harnessing the enthusiasm of the young, the in-house, the groups, the associations and the regions -- they are our strongest resource; and-- By hitting the right balance between regulation, representation and providing value-for-money membership services.Can all solicitors, particularly the young, have a bright future? In today's multicultural profession, our young, newly qualified and trainee solicitors will not forgive us if they inherit a fragmented profession led by a divided professional body.

With the Lord Chancellor still breathing down our necks on how we carry out our functions, we have a final opportunity to take the big decisions and get them right, speaking up for all solicitors and giving them an optimistic future.Is this election about issues or personalities? Some election candidates pledge to concentrate on the issues, not on people, and then do the opposite.

Avoiding that mistake, I simply ask the profession to accept that inevitably the election this year has three central issues: the internal reform agenda at Chancery Lane; the external agenda with government and other stakeholders; and to select the candidates who can best deliver issues one and two.If we are at last to cease taking one step forward and two steps back, the Law Society must have new leadership with me as President and David McIntosh as Vice-President.

Without that, for the Law Society this is not just the last chance saloon; it is not even last orders; it is throwing-out time.(Michael Napier is Council member for Yorkshire.)CANDIDATES FOR VICE-PRESIDENT-- ANTHONY BOGANTo explain my decision to stand for Vice-President this year, it would be tempting simply to refer to an editorial comment in the Solicitors Journal on 8 March 1996.'To most solicitors, the proposals made by the strategy committee to reform the Law Society Council are the equivalent of moving around the furniture and ignoring the fact that the building is about to fall down; now is the time for the profession to finally bite the bullet and separate the regulatory functions of the Law Society from its role as a trade union for its members; the present disruption at the Society is symptomatic of the major question which was avoided in the Society's strategy plan -- is its role tenable? Our answer is no, and now is the time to plan a division of the Law Society into two bodies -- before it breaks up in public disarray.

(Divided we stand!)That was more than four years ago.

In the intervening period, the Law Society has lurched from one crisis to the next because it has failed to recognise that in a consumer society, there is an impossible conflict between regulation and representation when both functions are discharged by the same organisation.The Society's dual role is no longer tenable.If anybody has a lingering doubt, look at the facts: only 10% of solicitors think that it does a good job in promoting their interests.

What do the other 90% thi nk? As a public regulator, the Society's role is nothing to boast about -- an extra £10 million last year spent on the Office for the Supervision of Solicitors and powers reserved in the Access to Justice Act 1999 to take regulation from us if we do not set our house in order.Michael Napier and David McIntosh support the status quo -- but with greater emphasis on regulation.

Robert Sayer and I support a separation of function -- and want the Law Society to return to its roots and become an effective representative body, just like the American Bar Association or the British Medical Association.If you agree with us, you are not alone.

Independent research commissioned by Milton Keynes and District Law Society last month established that a majority of solicitors thought that the Law Society should separate its dual roles and concentrate on representation and promotion.

They also supported open elections for all office-holders and an extended presidential term.

It makes sense, because we badly need some continuity.These elections are terribly important because they will decide the future role of the Law Society in modern Britain.

The choice is simple: a bare regulator that could be redundant five years from now, or an intelligent, representative body that will endure for generations of solicitors to come.The Law Society belongs to you.

If you want it to promote your interests you must support Sayer and Bogan.

If you want it to become a regulatory quango, vote for Napier and McIntosh.(Anthony Bogan is Council member for Surrey.)-- DAVID McINTOSHThe performance of the Law Society has been undermined by some of its leaders listening only to themselves and pursuing their individual agendas instead of commonly agreed ones.

No wonder staff morale has suffered and sections of our profession feel that their interests are being disregarded at Chancery Lane.What is needed to redress these negative impressions is a clean sweep that provides leaders with high reputations as practitioners who are capable of setting good examples as ambassadors for all solicitors.

Only when the merits of solicitors, as the main gateways to justice and enablers of commerce, are loudly and proudly acclaimed, will we all benefit from widespread approval which compares with the high marks which the profession's clients of all types give to their own solicitors.This will not be achieved by more of the same from Robert Sayer as an over-staying President who has already been in office for the past -- and, some would say, worst -- five years in the history of the Law Society, or by Anthony Bogan becoming Vice-President as somebody whose practice is now more in the nature of an estate agent's than a solicitor's.

They do not even agree with each other on how the Law Society should be reformed, yet both seek to dominate the reform process that, in truth, belongs to the entire profession.Instead of trusting the reform co-ordination group required by Council to present proposals as to the future role of the Law Society and composition of Council in time for the profession to decide on a new model by the end of the year, they insist on pursuing their own hobby horses with whoever agrees with them and have the gall to call that leadership.

Furthermore, Anthony Bogan is misconceived in asserting that Michael Napier and I want a Law Society that is a bare regulator.

We, in fact, favour the retention of both the regulatory and representative roles, but with distancing of the policing functions.Unlike Anthony Bogan, we do not want the Law Society to become a trade union only.Just in time, given the pressures facing the Law Society, a fresh leadership team committed to serving the interests of all solicitors' practices, large and small, and also employed solicitors is on offer.

From our respective backgrounds as experienced practitioners, Michael Napier as President, and me as Vice President, alongside whoever succeeds me as Deputy Vice-President, will provide what has been missing.

Significantly, all three candidates for Deputy Vice-President support the two of us.What requires decision is whether the reform process and the ongoing activities of the Law Society, both regulatory and representative, and the interests of all solicitors will be better served by the Napier/McIntosh team approach or by the two odd men out.Help the Law Society to regain credibility so that it can properly serve the interests of and raise the reputations of all solicitors.

Vote Napier for President and McIntosh for Vice President.(David McIntosh is Council member for the City of London.)CANDIDATES FOR DEPUTY VICE-PRESIDENT-- CAROLYN KIRBYWhy would anyone in their right mind want to be an office-holder of an organisation which currently enjoys such a negative public perception as the Law Society?The answer in my case is that I believe the profession is entitled to be proud of the work that it does, and the integrity and professionalism of the vast majority of its members.

It is also entitled to be represented in a way which projects and emphasises that professionalism.

Most solicitors feel justifiably frustrated that recent friction and political in-fighting has obscured the good work, often carried out for modest reward, which is being done in every town and city in the country.The same frustration exists within the Law Society itself.

The profession, the press and the public rarely have a chance to appreciate the very considerable positive side to the Society's activities, not least in the work of its specialist committees and task forces.

Alongside the staff contribution, a large number of practitioners give a considerable voluntary-time commitment to the management of the profession, the furtherance of law reform and the promotion of opportunities for professional excellence.

I believe that the politicisation of the role of the Society's office-holders in recent years has been significantly detrimental to good leadership and I wish to see a reversal of that trend.Leadership of the Law Society needs to be carried out collectively between the profession's elected representatives (the Council) and the office-holders who bear the responsibility of interfacing with the government and all the profession's other external stakeholders.

That collective responsibility requires an atmosphere of mutual respect and co-operation which has been regrettably lacking in the past year.The present reform process, to which the Council and the management executive are all fully committed, is putting in place a modern, streamlined framework for the representation and regulation of the profession.

Included in those reforms is a review of the remit and membership of Council.

We must ensure that the profession is appropriately and cogently represented on its governing body, but it is not sensible to determine the who until we establish the what.So -- why me? I am a 47-year-old solicitor with more than 20 years' experience in private practice.

I also have a wide range of management and administrative experience both within and outside the legal profession.

I have been active within the local law societies' group for 15 years, and have a better appreciation than most of the concerns of the profession across the whole spectrum of practice.My views on the current issues facing the profession and the skills which I can bring to bear on them are set out in more detail in my statement which accompanies the voting papers currently being circulated and I would urge you to read the statements in full before voting.I believe that Michael Napier and David McIntosh will provide the positive, dynamic leadership the profession requires and I ask for your support in electing me to assist them.(Carolyn Kirby is the Council member for mid and west Wales.)-- HILARY SIDDLEIf you live in the real world, as I do, of hitting monthly billing targets, monitoring new matters, and dealing on a daily basis with your client's demands, you will ask what relevance office-holder elections and the reform of the Council have for you.

The activities at Chancery Lane over the past months have been disastrous for the profession and have damaged our reputation with government and the public.Our reputation is vital for the survival of the profession.

Our reputation determines whether we are treated with respect, or with contempt.

Our reputation affects us all, from the large international City firms competing in world markets to legal aid practitioners on the high street.

Legal aid solicitors are angered by low levels of remuneration and profitability and depressed by being constantly criticised and undervalued.Our reputation is affected by the quality of the leadership from Council and the office-holders.

We need people who can represent a very diverse profession, in a constructive and inclusive way.

We need people who can work with others, not against them.

We need people who are more concerned about representing the interests of the profession than their own interests.I have been urged to stand as Deputy Vice-President by people who believe I have those qualities.

During the last five years, I have chaired the family law committee through a period of major law reform and have represented the profession with the Lord Chancellor, government ministers, senior civil servants and the judiciary.I have the support and respect of fellow Council members and if we are to get the Law Society to deliver on its core obligations, it is essential that the President and other office-holders have the support of Council, so that they work together.

When Council and the office-holders are at total odds, the Law Society becomes ineffective and discredited.Council members have been accused of being 'out of touch' and not understanding the problems of 'ordinary' solicitors.

Like many Council members, I am actively involved in working in and managing my firm and dealing with clients on a day-to-day basis.

I understand the problems of practice.

I experience them every day.

My firm has a legal aid franchise in crime, family and mental health.

I know all about the frustrations of dealing with the Legal Services Commission under contracting.

We also have a substantial private client practice.

As clients become more sophisticated, we have to run that little bit harder to keep ahead of the game.

We live in a time of constant change.As a result, stress affects more solicitors, from those newly qualified through to the middle-aged and people who cannot afford to retire.

We cannot ignore these problems.

Neither should we underestimate the opportunities available for the profession.

We have to meet the challenges of the future with confidence.(Hilary Siddle is Council member for Cumbria and Lancaster.)-- DAVID SAVAGEElection addresses normally seem to have one theme: that the candidate will lead electors to the Promised Land.

I make no such promises.I point to my record of ten years' service on the Council, during which time I have championed the cause of practitioners.

I have always said that it is not for me to look after the public interest.

There are others, alas all too many you may feel, who do that.

As a working partner in a small firm (I am one of three partners), I know the problems affecting the profession better than most people.Why should you vote for me as your number one choice? First, I will point to my record.

Over the years, I have sought to make constructive criticism of proposals placed before the Council.

All large organisations need an opposition.

I know my colleagues (too polite sometimes) may have been irritated, but as a fellow Council member said to me last month: 'You say the things we think, but dare not say.'Take, for example, the Office for the Supervision of Solicitors.

The cost of this is spiralling.

Just voting extra money is a palliative not a cure.

The Kamlesh Bahl affair, I am told, will cost more than £1 million; I expect there will be more shocks in store when the final figures are known.

I told the Council in January that I considered the matter was being badly handled.

I remain of that view.You will be told that the Council needs reform.

I have said that for years but at the end of the day, it is the Council members who make those reforms workable or unworkable.

There is too much bickering.

I recognise what is achievable.

For example, over the years, I have advocated wider rights of audience for solicitors; that is now a reality.

Pressure, continuous pressure, should be applied for more solicitors to be appointed to the bench, and not just those with advocacy experience.A glance at the election addresses of some of the candidates over the years makes interesting reading.

I cannot claim to be a Law Society 'worthy' who has chaired this or that committee.

I have not written any learned tome.

I do not represent the big battalions.

I do have common sense and the ability to know what is achievable.

It is for that reason that I ask for your vote.(David Savage is Council member for Berkshire and North Hampshire.)