The decision of the Employment Appeals Tribunal (EAT) (see [2003] Gazette, 14 August, 3) to overturn the findings of unconscious sex and race discrimination against former Law Society President Robert Sayer and myself in relation to Kamlesh Bahl also means that the liability of the Law Society falls away.

The EAT was highly critical of the original tribunal and confirmed the opinion of the Law Society's counsel that its findings were perverse, contrary to law and sometimes without an evidential basis.

In spite of that opinion, I can understand the view of those who wished to distance themselves from the previous regime - and their fear of potential financial consequences should the appeal fail.

Thus, I am extremely grateful to the Law Society Council, not only for putting justice before pragmatism and overwhelmingly supporting our appeal, but also for remaining steadfast in the face of various attempts to negate its decision.

The past three years have been unpleasant and costly for me.

Although my termination settlement was fair, the finding of unlawful discrimination has been particularly serious for someone whose career is in public service.

Time and again, I have reached the final stage of selection only to fall at the final hurdle when ministerial approval was needed.

Without the council's firm resolve, that impediment would have been there for the rest of my working life.

Jane Betts, former Law Society Secretary-General, Stowe, Buckingham