I promised the profession fresh and strong leadership at the beginning of my presidential year.

A lot has been achieved to bring about a reformed, stronger, more confident and effective Law Society.

It would be self-destructive to turn the clock back and that is why I reject the three annual general meeting motions referred to last week by Robert Sayer (see [2001] Gazette, 21 June, 20).These motions are a distraction from the excellent progress in reforms that the Law Society has made this year to restore stability at Chancery Lane and credibility in the eyes of the outside world that had virtually given up on us.

The motions would simply trigger a process that would substantially under-fund the Office for the Supervision of Solicitors just when we are well on the way to restoring its reputation as an efficient complaints-handling body.In balancing its duties to the profession and the public interest, the Law Society Council could not responsibly accede to a request to reduce the practising certificate fee.

In short, any failure to raise the necessary level of funding properly to discharge our regulatory activities would be certain to activate government threats to intervene.The loss of self-regulation would mean its replacement by a more expensive external regulator whose costs would hit hard in every solicitor's pocket.

Last year, my election manifesto said Mr Sayer's 'latest election platform of separating self-regulation and representation will play straight into the hands of government and simultaneously split the Law Society'.

That again would be the precise effect of the three motions and that is why an overwhelming majority of council members soundly rejected them at the council meeting on 14 June.

The motions fly in the face of reality and must not be allowed to succeed.All year long I have said that the tension caused by simultaneously regulating and representing the profession can be managed provided that both functions are performed well.

We pursued both this year.

On the representation front, the biggest challenge was the confrontation with the government and the Legal Services Commission over the criminal defence contracts affecting thousands of firms.

In short the 'don't sign' campaign succeeded and created the platform for continuing negotiation.

The same can be said about the demise of the Homes Bill that would have introduced a compulsory home survey report as part of a sellers' pack.

We hope that there will now be a much more realistic Bill on electronic conveyancing in its place.If 'delivery' is the catchword of national politics today, the same applies to the challenges that faced the Law Society 12 months ago.

With the help of my fellow office holders, the council, the chief executive and many others, I can confidently say that, despite a roller-coaster ride, we now have in place the cornerstones and much internal brickwork of the reform structure to support a modern, strong Law Society.

We will soon have a larger council, better able to engage directly with the diverse profession of today.

New seats will be filled shortly by representatives from the many groups and specialist associations that have so much to contribute.

There will also be the landmark introduction of five lay members to the council -- lay members who will remind us about the council's public interest responsibilities and the need to focus on clients.Looking to the future, which depends so much on younger members of the profession, the council will now include not only two seats for young solicitors but also a seat for trainee/legal practice course students.

Finally, the annual expensive and destructive ritual of a national election for the president will be a thing of the past.

Keeping the Society out of the negative headlines that such contests have generated over the years must be right.The decision by the profession to endorse the election of the deputy vice president by the council acting as an electoral college has been widely acclaimed, as is the knowledge that office holders can now progress over a three-year period.

If the bricks knocked out of the crumbling Law Society wall that I inherited have now be replaced I am confident that my successors will use their strength and determination to keep the wall in place, dovetailing the new governance structure with the chief executive's process of staff restructuring.

The new corporate style boards will deliver policy -- set by the council -- in the modern and businesslike manner that members and outsiders are entitled to demand.In such a challenging year some issues remain to be resolved.

I hope that we will soon see progress on judicial and Queen's Counsel appointments.

The Society has been, and continues to be, a strong and influential voice in this debate.

However imperfect we believe the present system to be, the Society must think carefully about whether solicitors with judicial aspirations should be denied the input of the Society's views in the consultation process.Finally, I acknowledge that I have received huge help from many people and in the short space of one year much has been achieved against the odds.

By working together with so many colleagues in and out of Chancery Lane we have moved a mountain.