When Clifford Chance partner Michael Mathews joined the Law Society Council four years ago, the last thing on his personal agenda was standing for the presidency of his professional body.

'I thought I was keeping the seat warm for someone younger in the City,' he says now.That younger candidate never materialised and as of last week, the 56-year-old joint senior partner of the finance practice at one of the world's largest law firms has been slotted into the top seat at Chancery Lane.

In 1996, he was drafted in to stand for Deputy Vice-President to give some City clout to the Tony Girling and Phillip Sycamore ticket, moving up to Vice-President last year despite facing another challenge at the polls.

Until relatively late in the game this year, it appeared as though Mr Mathews would slide unchallenged into the presidency, until Sheffield solicitor Michael Napier announced a last-minute bid.Ultimately, Mr Mathews saw off the challenge by a close but comfortable margin.

But the most striking aspect of the election was the low turn-out, with roughly only a quarter of the profession filling in their ballot papers.

Does Chancery Lane democracy breed complacency, alienation or dissatisfaction in solicitors? The new President suggests that more than one fo rce was at play.

'There are undoubtedly people who are alienated.

There was also a feeling that there weren't any issues about which there was major disagreement among the candidates.

There was more of a difference of emphasis than a real disagreement over issues.'In Mr Mathews's view, that difference boiled down to whether the Society was concentrating enough on the government's legal aid and civil justice reforms.

'Michael Napier thought we were being too introspective and not giving priority to those areas; I think he was wrong.' Mr Mathews freely acknowledges that he is at a disadvantage in the legal aid debate, having never practised on that side of the fence.

However, he points out that he is 'a lot more comfortable' with the subject now compared with when he joined the Council and likewise, that he will not be entering the fray with ministers on his own, but with the support of a well-informed Chancery Lane policy team.While legal aid might be a slightly alien subject, the new President is more directly at home with two other crucial areas which must be tackled during his term: professional indemnity insurance and multi-disciplinary partnerships (MDPs).Indemnity is arguably the stickiest wicket on which the President will have to bat.

With the profession still haunted by the massive indemnity fund shortfall and the Society's Council preparing to put forward concrete proposals for the future of the indemnity fund this autumn, Mr Mathews is keeping his personal views under wraps.

For the time being he says: 'I am not convinced that I have heard all the arguments.

I don't think that one answer is absolutely right or that the other is absolutely wrong.

That is unless you take the view that it is clear that in the marketplace there would be some -- and you can argue as to whether it would be 5%, 15% or whatever -- who could get cheaper cover on the market.'There is a point of principle: does the profession as a whole -- if it decides collectively that a mutual fund is preferable -- have the right to tell the 5% or 15% that they will have to pay more?'While his mind may not be decided on the detail of the indemnity issue, Mr Mathews is confident of some core basics.

'I could not support the continuation of a mutual fund if I was not satisfied that we could not deal with those relatively few firms whose claims records are so appalling that they are being heavily subsidised by the rest of the profession.

Frankly, there are some firms that should be put on probation and if they are not performing better in a relatively short time, then they should be taken out of the scheme.'Another emotive issue is the ever increasing prospect of the birth of fully-fledged MDPs.

In the relatively recent past, Law Society presidents and other members of the hierarchy were adamantly against the concept.

Events have overtaken that opposition.

First came Garretts and Arthur Andersen, then Arnheim & Co and Price Waterhouse and finally Tite & Lewis and Coopers & Lybrand.

While these still fall short of outright MDPs, they certainly form the halfway house between traditional legal practice and the new world of MDPs.Mr Mathews represents the gradual change of view that has transpired at Chancery Lane.

Following on from his predecessor, who in his final speech at the Law Society annual general meeting last week drew attention to the increasingly unavoidable issue of MDPs, Mr Mathews expresses perhaps the most liberal line to come from a Society President.'People shouldn't be stopped from doing things unless there is a good reason to stop them.

I would like to find a way to allow people to form MDPs, but we must find that way without destroying the element of independence that is crucial to being a solicitor.

But ultimately the professions will only succeed if they give the clients the service they want.' Mr Mathews speculates that many corporate clients might not wish to go to an MDP for legal advice, but some will and they, combined with the smaller businesses which will find MDPs more economic, will create an irresistible impetus for that type of partnership.The key to maintaining independence, he says, will be in strong self-regulation of the profession.

Even though the government appears enthusiastic about addressing the regulation issue in high-profile consumer fields, Mr Mathews is confident that Whitehall's gaze is not yet ready to turn on solicitors.

But just because it is not currently on the government's agenda does not mean it will not be looked at soon, he warns.From a personal view, Mr Mathews maintains a firm commitment to self-regulation.

One of his strongest arguments turns around cost.

A government-operated quango designed to oversee the legal profession would be more expensive and involve even greater bureaucracy, he asserts.

'If rules are made by people who don't understand how things are done at the sharp end of practice, you get over-complicated procedures which then translate into higher costs.

Those costs will be passed on to the profession which in turn will pass them on to the clients.'