What do changes in government family policy mean for the high street solicitor who has invested time and money in getting a legal aid franchise, joining the Law Society's family law panel and children panel, training as a mediator and setting up family alliances? Everything family lawyers have been planning has been turned upside down by the Lord Chancellor's announcement that part II of the Family Law Act 1996 is going to be shelved until after the year 2000, possibly indefinitely.Why has there been such a turn around? Lord Irvine gave disappointing results from the divorce information pilots as the sole reason for postponing the implementation of the Act indefinitely.

He admitted openly for the first time that the aim of the Act was to 'turn' the public from solicitors to mediators -- something which divorce lawyers have known since 1995.

Initial results show that after attending the meeting, 40% said they would go and see a solicitor, only 7% would see a mediator first.It is good news for the profession that there will not be compulsory government-funded divorce information meetings.

It means solicitors will remain the first port of call for advice and information on family matters.No explanation has been offered as to why the government is not proceeding with no-fault divorce.

One of the major reasons put forward for the reform of divorce law five years ago, was that the allegations of adultery and unreasonable behaviour contained within a petition inflamed relations between the parties and were not in the interests of the children.

It was claimed that the process encouraged solicitors to be adversarial to the disadvantage of their clients.

The media continues to demonise lawyers and to blame them for bitter disputes, but the reality is that practice has changed and solicitors support mediation and a conciliatory approach.

The government continues to promote mediation and when the section 29 mediation pilots have been evaluated, a clearer picture will emerge of the relationship between mediation and legal advice.Probably a quarter of all solicitors for whom family law is the major area of work have trained as mediators.

Mediation awareness training is compulsory for everyone who has a legal aid franchise.

Many of the section 29 pilot contracts for mediation are with solicitor mediators.

The culture has changed.Despite the government's acknowledged concern for the family, it was always apparent that costs have driven government policy.

Costs as they affect the Treasury (negotiations on standard fees have been on going for three years), and the public (last year's suggestion to implement a 50:50 split to avoid all ancillary relief disputes).

The perception of the government and the public is that solicitors are committed to driving up costs, but most family lawyers and their clients want to see sensible and efficient procedures for reaching fair conclusions.So we come to the Lord Chancellor's unexpected announcement that the government intends to introduce the ancillary relief pilot project nationwide on 5 June 2000.

Unexpected because the consultants who were asked to assess the pilots were concerned about the 'front loading' of costs and the court service was concerned about the implications for resources.

Although no statistical evidence is yet available on settlement rates, the expectation is that cases will settle faster, minds will be focused on major issues from the outset, and clients will appreciate litigation concluding quickly.

The best intentions can be frustrated by unreasonable clients, but following the recent decision in Piglowska v Piglowska, the parties must be made aware that costs should not be out of proportion to the assets at issue.At last there is real movement towards addressing practical problems.

The Law Society's family law committee has been looking urgently at the future of practice.

It intends to help with the provision of divorce information by the profession.

We need simplified financial dispute protocols and guidance on summary assessment of costs.

There will be a need for training on the new procedures and pension sharing, instead of the implementation of part II.

I think we have a real opportunity to regain the initiative.