Nothing is certain in life except death and taxation, but the current Labour government seems to want to add a third certainty -- pensions.

And it is using the carrot-and-stick approach to make people squirrel away money for the future -- and the stick approach extends to ensuring that most employers make pensions 'accessible' to their employees.Unfortunately, like making a will, providing for the future is always being put off -- and lawyers are no exception.

Accountants Grant Thornton as recently as 1998 claimed that large numbers of lawyers working in a 'substantial minority' of the 120 law firms it advised had not made proper pension provision.

In the worst cases, senior partners who had worked for 40 years had been left with a 'pittance of a pension' and were living almost 'hand to mouth' upon their retirement.The stakeholder pension scheme is the government's vision of a low-cost, portable personal pension to be administered by employers, who must deduct the pension contributions at source and deal with insurance companies over default arrangements.Following the strong rumours that many firms had not put insurance policies in place by 1 September, when the Solicitors Indemnity Fund stopped taking new cases and the legal profession could choose the open market for indemnity insurance, the fact that almost 90% have no idea that the stakeholder pension provisions apply to them may not be too much of a surprise.A survey carried out in August by Birmingham-based niche financial services and tax law firm Armstrong Neal found that of the 292 law firms surveyed, 88% thought stakeholder pensions would not affect them, and the rest were waiting for guidance.But there is quite a long lead time before April 2001, when pension provisions come into force.

Access to stakeholder pensions will be compulsory by October 2001.Meanwhile, law firms and other employers with more than five employees have at least six months to prepare for stakeholder pensions.

Robert West, head of the pensions' department at Baker & McKenzie and chairman of the Association of Pensions Lawyers, is not surprised at the survey's findings.He says the lead time may seem long, but one of the difficulties in the run-up to the introduction of stakeholder pensions is that many of necessary regulations are still in the process of being settled, with some aspects still subject to debate.'One of the problems was whether you could have concurrent membership of an occupational scheme and a stakeholder pension -- it has now been settled that you can be a concurrent member if you do not earn more than £30,000 a year,' he says.

'There is also concern that those in an occupational scheme may come out of that scheme, which is where the problems arose in relation to the current pensions mis-selling claims.'These claims have their root in the late 1980s, when people were persuaded to leave occupational schemes for personal ones with higher charges and overheads.For most employers, if they already have a pension scheme in place, adapting to stakeholder pensions will be less problematic.

Robin Ellison, national chairman of the pensions' group at Eversheds, says: 'Stakeholder pensions are a bit of a non-issue for firms because there is no re quirement for the employer to put any money into the pension -- but they do have to set up a payroll system and deal with the insurance companies to set up the default arrangements.

It is bad news if a firm forgets to do it because it is liable to a fine of £50,000 if it is a company and £5,000 if it is an individual.

And no-one knows if OPRA [the Occupational Pensions Regulatory Authority] will be particularly zealous in policing compliance of all the employers that have over five employees.'If any firm knows, it should be Eversheds.

Last year, it pleaded guilty to magistrates' court charges of making late payments of employees' contributions to two pension schemes, brought by OPRA.

The case arose following the merger with Newcastle upon Tyne firm Wilkinson Maughan in July 1997.Mr Ellison adds that law firms will be amending their existing arrangements to 'facilitate' access to stakeholder pensions and will do it as a matter of course.

But it is likely that the non-law or non-professional firms and employers will fall foul of OPRA, he says: 'The vast bulk of small and medium-sized enterprises -- which are in the thousands -- may be in breach because they find it difficult to keep up with more red tape and bureaucracy, and will be struggling to deal with this on top of family tax credit.

It is early days; very few insurers are geared up for it yet.

But that will change over the next six months as they start rolling out their products.'Ian Pittaway, a partner in pensions' specialist firm Sacker & Partners, considers that any changes will be straightforward.

He says: 'Basically, you have a year to get your act together.

First you have to check whether the provisions apply to your practice; for many firms that are too small, they do not have to worry.

But if they do, then you need to designate a stakeholder, which may be provided by an insurance company or, depending on the sector, by a professional body.

Then they have to set up a payroll deduction facility -- this should not be too much of a major exercise for the small firms, but it is another burden on employers -- it is hardly Armageddon.'For the legal profession as a whole, Grant Thornton financial planning manager Stewart Aylward comments that it would be useful if the Law Society set up an umbrella stakeholder plan, which will accommodate the large number of smaller firms that have to comply with the stakeholder requirements.A Law Society spokesperson said: 'The Law Society is looking at the stakeholder pension provisions from the point of view of law firms, and also examining whether the Society should be involved in an umbrella scheme; if so, it will be in place in time for April 2001.'Mr Aylward adds: 'It is also possible for an employer to check whether it qualifies for exemption from the stakeholder pension requirements because it already offers an equivalent personal pension scheme, which meets the criteria of a stakeholder pension in terms of the charges that apply and the percentage of the contributions to the fund.'Both pensions' lawyers and pensions' advisers agree that the stakeholder pension is useful as a tax tool for partners, who can invest up to £3,600 for each member of their family -- that is, non-earning spouse and children -- so it is important for individual solicitor planning.

And at the moment there is no age limit on investing in such a fund for children.The major advantage is tax relief -- no other investment offers such favourable initial or up-front tax relief -- and it means that most people can boost their pension fund by £1,000 before costs by putting in just £780, while higher rate taxpayers can achieve the same result by investing just £600.As Melanie Johnson, economic secretary to the Treasury, said when the announcement regarding concurrent membership was made earlier this year: 'This is excellent news for eight million people earning under £30,000 who will now be able to increase their pensions.

The hallmarks of stakeholder pensions -- low cost, good value and portability -- make them especially suited for people who frequently move jobs.'And that portability may suit the more mobile legal profession.

Mr Aylward stresses that 'the emphasis is on access to a pension scheme.

And in terms of tax planning, it is a good way to build up a fund with quite a lot of help from the Inland Revenue'.

A solicitor can get access to tax-free growth (subject to tax on dividends), and on retirement have a much bigger pension; or he can take 25% as a lump sum, and the rest must be used to provide a pension -- which is taxable at that time.

'Over the long term, it is potentially an attractive tax tool,' Mr Aylward concludes.Financial advisers have generally welcomed the changes, and predict that for the majority of occupational scheme members, in the next few years, stakeholder pensions will replace additional voluntary contributions (AVC) as a means of extra saving for retirement.

And it is likely that free-standing AVCs, with their higher charges, will also disappear for those earning less than £30,000.There are still concerns about the final framework for stakeholder pensions, and a fear that pensions' mis-selling may be replaced by pensions mis-buying as people on low incomes rush to snap up stakeholder pensions, not realising that they will lose the minimum income guarantee which currently gives them at least £80 per week from the state pension.

As one pensions adviser says: 'Whether it is mis-selling or mis-buying, it is the lawyers who win out in the end.'