So the Lord Chancellor feels let down by the solicitors' profession over his divorce reform proposals.

He thinks the Law Society press releases do not emphasise enough the fact that the Law Society supports no-fault divorce.

This message, he complains, is obscured by the attacks we have made on the government's proposals.

As chairman of the family law committee I must accept responsibility for failing to support the Lord Chancellor, particularly when he is under attack.

But is that surprising, when the profession has had little or no support from him during his period in office and he has shown indifference to anything we have to say? This has been a difficult two weeks for the Lord Chancellor.

He must really be rattled if he is asking for our support against critics from the back benches within his own party.

That is hardly the Law Society's job.

It is our job to tell the public and the government what solicitors think of the government's proposals.

Of course it might be tempting for us to line up with those who are attacking the no-fault aspect of the divorce reform proposals.

The Daily Mail and its friends are clearly making some headway.

It is possible that they will actually stop the Bill; there are some solicitors who would also like to stop the Bill, although for different reasons.

But the Law Society and its family law committee have supported the idea of removing the need to prove fault from divorce since 1979, and we are not going to change our tune now.

That would be disingenuous and unprincipled.We have objections to a large number of the proposals in the white paper and it is hardly surprising that we should emphasise these.

We object to the idea of compelling people to attend a public divorce information session, particularly when its thinly disguised purpose is to be an occasion for state-sponsored anti-solicitor propaganda.

We object to coercing couples into mediation without the support of legal advice.

All the research on mediation, an d all the mediators, say that mediation works best when both parties are advised by lawyers.

It is simple common sense.

Mediation is about compromise.

No one is willing to compromise unless they have a clear idea of the extent of the compromises they are being asked to make.

Those involved in family breakdown have all emphasised that if vulnerable parties do not have a defender to protect their interests they may lose out in mediated settlements.

But the government seems not to be listening to any of us.

Instead of taking seriously the points we have raised and dealing with them, the Lord Chancellor accuses us of bad faith and attacks our motives.

He claims our objections are simply based on self-interest.

Impugning the motives of an opponent is the tactic of one who is beginning to lose the argument -- and knows it.

If we are so self-interested, why did we originally propose and have supported ever since, the concept of no-fault divorce? We will continue to analyse government proposals for law reform dispassionately.

When there are proposals that we can welcome we will say so, but where what is proposed looks unworkable and is flawed we will say so loudly and clearly.

The profession must know that on family law the Law Society will continue to articulate the concerns we feel.

We will not be bounced into joining a political chorus from the so-called 'family values' lobby.

Nor will we be deterred by attacks from the Lord Chancellor from putting our case frequently and forcefully to MPs, to the media and to anyone who will listen.