Lawyers dominate on-line and on the pitchFrom marriage break-ups to match-fixing, it was a week in the spotlight for the legal profession.

The big news for divorcing couples came on Tuesday, when the government announced the scrapping of part II of the Family Law Act 1996.The Act, which had promised no-fault divorces and compulsory mediation for couples, was described as 'unworkable' by Lord Irvine, and most of the papers agreed with his assessment with gusto.The Daily Mail (17 January) added 'disastrous' and 'appalling', and claimed the climb-down was a 'vindication of the Daily Mail's campaign' against the bill, on the grounds that 'no-fault divorce lowers marriage to something of less value than a television licence'.

It was left to The Guardian to defend the beleaguered law, claiming that 'the Lord Chancellor set back social reform by 30 years this week' (18 January).

While admitting that 'some things were wrong with the Bill', it argued that the Lord Chancellor has 'condemned unhappily married people to many more years of unnecessary acrimony, bitterness and pain', and urged 'more realism and less ministerial moralising' in Parliament.Moralising was rife this week, with the hugely controversial case of solicitor Alan Kilshaw and his wife Judith, and the Internet babies they adopted, producing acres of outraged copy.

The Express (20 January) suggested that the Kilshaws were behaving in an 'increasingly erratic manner', resulting in the babies being taken into care.More high-profile drama this week with the landmark Court of Appeal decision overturning the libel award made to footballer Bruce Grobbelaar over an allegation of match-fixing made in The Sun.

The unprecedented decision 'put the jury system in the dock' thundered The Times (19 January), adding that 'it divided the legal profession' into those who 'saw it as a victory for common sense; others said it set a dangerous precedent'.The Guardian (19 January) was more clear cut, if self-interested,saying that 'any extra weapon in the limited armoury of a newspaper defending a libel action is to bewelcomed', and expressing the hope that this 'extraordinary decision' will change the current 'libel lottery'system.Elsewhere, the media gave a broad welcome to the proposed Criminal Justice and Police Bill.

The Telegraph approvingly described the Bill - aimed at 'city centre yobs and drunks' - as 'one of the biggest extensions of police power for many years' (20 January), and hoped that it would not go the same way as Tony Blair's 'ill starred' on-the-spot fine proposals of last year.

The Financial Times (22 January), however, sounded a note of caution, warning that it was a 'significant extension of police power' and therefore 'safeguards and proper monitoring' were needed.Finally, the week wouldn't be complete without a compensation scare story, and the announcement of a 43 million modernising programme for the civil justice system was just the ticket.

The Evening Standard in London (16 January) warned of 'a fresh explosion of compensation culture' resulting from the programme; The Daily Star (16 January) gloomily predicted that 'county courts could soon be replaced by the Internet'; and The Daily Express (16 January) decided to celebrate the news with one of the best legal headlines of the year so far: 'Sue you sir - from the sofa'.Victoria MacCallum