Jonathan Ames meets Peter Williamson, who sets out his agenda as new Law Society president

Peter Williamson has every right to feel slightly shell-shocked.

One day after having the Law Society presidential gong slipped round his neck, he was presented with proposals from the Department for Constitutional Affairs for the most profound shake-up ever of the regulation of the legal profession.

So while most Law Society presidents are allowed a summer honeymoon period after taking office, a fortnight ago Mr Williamson - the 55-year-old consultant with Lincoln's Inn-based law firm Dawsons - found himself in at the deep end of media attention.

Early indications are that he will hold up his end tenaciously in the forthcoming discussion/battle (depending on one's point of view) with ministers over the shape of not just the regulation of lawyers, but of the profession itself.

As to whether in three years' time the solicitors' profession will be regulated by the Law Society in the same way as it is now, Mr Williamson pauses and considers before saying: 'I hope so, and I think it is in the public interest that we should continue to do so.'

A bold statement, on the face of it, in the light of the Lord Chancellor's suggestion that the forthcoming Clementi review will take an everything-up-for-grabs approach (see [2003] Gazette, 31 July, 1, 14).

But Mr Williamson is adamant that self-regulation remains the ideal for the profession.

Having said that, he is also a realist.

If ministers are determined to reform the structure of regulation, Mr Williamson will aim to clarify what he considers to be some muddy waters.

On the one hand, he is adamant that ministers will not have formed a final view to remove the complaints-handling function from the Law Society.

On the other hand, he attempts to debunk a common perception.

'It is important not to confuse regulation with complaints handling,' he cautions.

'There is a much wider side to regulation.

I don't believe that anyone wants to take away the whole of our regulatory function.

Education and training, the making of the rules and standards, will not be things that would be taken away.'

But if Whitehall adopted the radical option and removed regulation from the profession's governing bodies, how would the Law Society fare as purely a trade union organisation? 'The Society would still have a representative role,' insists Mr Williamson, 'but it would operate at different levels for different types of practices.

But I would not want to see us get away from the fact that we are one profession, and that the Law Society would be able to represent all branches and sectors of that profession.'

Indeed, Chancery Lane presidents have been chanting the 'one profession' mantra for as long as golden lions have stood guard on the railings outside the Law Society head offices.

But do solicitors practising in the now multi-sector profession believe in that credo? Mr Williamson is confident that they do: 'When they think about it they find that we have more in common than people sometimes say.

Our integrity, the core values, they should be the same whatever type of practice a solicitor is in.

'The more I talk to the senior people in the City, the more I pick up a sense of responsibility towards the profession.

While many of the things the [Law Society] Council debates may not be of direct interest to them, nevertheless they have a contribution to make in the interest of justice.'

If Mr Williamson has his way, quite apart from the Clementi review, there will be plenty for Law Society Council members and Chancery Lane staff to chew over during the next 12 months.

While not being a great believer in targets - 'they usually result in disasters' - Mr Williamson has set himself some goals for the year ahead.

Near the top of the list is providing Law Society help to the major commercial firms in their battle to open markets to English law firms overseas.

He will also aim to increase the entire profession's awareness of the increasing importance of EU law.

On the domestic front, Mr Williamson puts the battle for the future of the legal aid system at the top of the agenda.

'We've got to start persuading people that publicly funded legal work is as important to the public as health and education.

That is not going to be easy.'

In the past, the Society has attempted to go over the heads of ministers and appeal directly to the public through high-profile advertising campaigns.

That is not Mr Williamson's preferred tactic, as he inclines instead towards 'sensible discussion' with ministers, designed 'to persuade the Treasury that more money should be available for publicly funded work'.

Also on the president's to-do list for 2003-04 is a desire 'to make significant progress' on the linked issues of fee sharing and referral fees.

Likewise, Mr Williamson pinpoints the Society's forthcoming training review as a major issue for his presidential year.

Another chunk of his attention will be devoted to ironing out any kinks in the recently reformed Law Society corporate governance structure.

Mr Williamson says the expansion of the council - a body he has been a member of since 1992 - and the creation of a board structure has been successful, 'but that is not to say it is perfect'.

He explains: 'We still need to make sure that we've got the right constituencies.

We need to clarify what precisely are the roles of council and what are the roles of the main board.

With a larger council, of necessity, more of the decision making is delegated to the main board.

That transition in itself creates tensions, and it is those tensions that we now need to address.'

If Mr Williamson is shell-shocked now, with that extended agenda he will be nothing short of totally exhausted in a year's time.