Go on the offensive ;Presidents column ;Micheal Napier hits back in the face of media criticism of lawyers ;Hard on the heels of the legal controversy over the US election, we appear to be in a season of intense lawyer bashing.

;It is not so much a case of Shakespeares Lets kill all the lawyers as lets blame lawyers for any problem that exists, even though their role is simply the professional one of helping to resolve problems.

;A typical example was a recent full-page article in the Mail on Sunday by Suzanne Moore entitled Save us from the plague of legal parasites.

She wrote: Dont lawyers get rich mostly on the back of misery? Rather than being our saviours they are mostly parasites and vultures ;who may be clever but are not necessarily people of principle ;or even original thought.

;I replied the following week in ;a letter asking how commentators such as Ms Moore thought the impasse in the US presidential election should be resolved by a shoot-out? Lawyers do not cause problems; lawyers represent clients and solve problems.

A good example that explodes the myth about the role of family lawyers is the ;recent independent Oxford University study, funded ;by the Nuffield Foundation, which showed that in fact solicitors go out of their way to discourage an adversarial approach to ;family breakdown.

;Following the Mail on Sunday story, the opportunity arose to debate ;these issues on Radio 4s Today programme, with John Humphrys in the chair, Ms Moore for the prosecution, and myself for the defence.

The opening assertion ;was that lawyers are dominating everything everywhere.

My counterpoint was that lawyers are there to serve society, being accountable to their clients and to the courts.

And a good thing too that in todays rights aware society that lawyers are readily available to solve peoples problems.

;Keeping the debate on the boil, Mr Humphrys then suggested that the ambulance chasing lawyers culture of the US is taking hold in the UK and a compensation culture is developing.

How does this perception arise? The most frequently misquoted example is the famous McDonalds hot coffee case where the popular perception is that a woman, who scalded herself with hot coffee she was trying to drink while driving, then brought a frivolous lawsuit against McDonalds for millions of dollars.

The true facts are that the 79-year-old woman was sitting in a parked car, driven by her grandson.

When she removed the lid, coffee at a temperature of 190 degrees spilt over her groin causing third-degree burns and ten days in hospital.

Ultimately, she agreed a settlement, at a fraction of the ;jurys award.

;Therefore, as a counter to Ms Moores parasite point, I asked if you or any member of your family had a problem, particularly if it was an accident, what would you do? I then suggested that she would ask her friends for the name of an approachable solicitor who could handle the claim sympathetically and compassionately.

Her Mail on Sunday article and the radio debate highlight what a soft target lawyers are and how much we need to raise the publics understanding of the law and the responsible, even vital, role of solicitors in society.

;So, what happened next? The Mail on Sunday promptly published a ;full-page of anti-lawyer jokes, encouraging readers to e-mail further examples.

Sure, we can take a joke and laugh at ourselves; but cheap- shot jokes and ill-informed attacks merely obscure the serious reality of what lawyers do.

They do not behave in a sanctimonious way, but as professionals who give a quality service to clients who want to ;assert their rights.

So please ;join me in seizing every ;opportunity to get on the front foot to promote the reputation of solicitors.

There should be ;no more embarrassment about answering the question over the dinner table, what do you do ;for a living? ;Reform consultation ;It is only with a strong Law Society that we can lead a public debate to establish the importance of law and the status of solicitors who, ;by their example, show why it means a lot to belong to a model professional body that represents them well and regulates them effectively.

;A great deal of work has been ;done recently by many people to produce a radically changed Law Society; a body that is restructured ;to operate in a business-like and accountable way with a council more representative of the diverse and vibrant profession of today.

;The closing date for the consultation on the proposed reforms is 18 December.

;Please take a few minutes ;to complete and send in your ;views if you have not already done so.

A copy of the consultation paper is available on the Societys Web site at www.new.lawsociety.org.uk and solicitors can fill in the questionnaire on line.

;Alternatively, those who need another hard copy should telephone the Law Societys practice advice service on 0870 606 2522.

We need to help the council to shape the main framework of reforms in January prior to a special general meeting in the spring and implementation in the summer.

;Delivering reform of the Law Society has been a longstanding problem requiring a solution ;and it is another example where ;the problem solvers can ;come under attack because ;criticism is always an easier path than progress.

;This reform programme is serious and with your help we will deliver it.

But we must also keep a sense of humour.

As Groucho Marx ;said there are only two things ;I cant handle success and ;failure.

;We must not fail; we will succeed.

;Meanwhile, have you heard the one about? ;Michael Napier is President of the Law Society.