The latest parliamentary uproar following the Neil Hamilton case might seem to have little to do with the legal profession.

Think again.

There are numerous implications for practitioners, their employers and their professional organisations.Three groups will have an immediate interest in this week's events: the Law Society and its 250 or so parliamentary liaison officers (PLOs); specialist lobbying bodies, like the Solicitors Family Law Association and the Association of Personal Injury Lawyers; and City law firms, many of which engage parliamentary consultants, be they professional lobbyists, or solicitor MPs and peers.How will the revelations about payments for political influence affect the profession's voice in Westminster? Will practitioners still be able to exploit the lobbying and PR aspects of individual cases through MPs?The general reaction of seasoned observers to the revelations that some MPs may have been paid money to ask parliamentary questions, to lobby ministers and to support particular companies can be summed up succinctly: incredulity.There are some 650 MPs.

One can always be found to support a cause.

All it requires is research and persuasion.

Bearing this in mind, individual practitioners who are accustomed to lobbying on behalf of their clients have nothing to fear.Some people complain that Parliament depends on personal relationships and favours.

But so does life in general.

The Law Society, for instance, actively encourages PLOs to establish relationships with their local MPs by offering to help with legal problems encountered in surgeries.

Many PLOs have excellent contacts with their MPs, some have developed long-standing friendships.

This means our case is heard, but the Law Society as a whole gets no favours in return.City law firms and professional bodies which retain outside lobbying consultants are unlikely to alter their current arrangements.

There is an increasing trend for ministers and their shadows to refuse to speak directly to lobbying firms, but this is no barrier.

A good lobbyist is there to explain the system and identify the best methods of exploiting it.

The client makes the case.This latest Westminster debacle may put a temporary stop to the lavish parties thrown by many lobbying consultancies, but lobbying does not require parties or large sums of money.The bottom line is results.

In this context, practitioners can use simple criteria to determine lobbying success in the post-Hamilton era.

Forget the number of political stars you get to shake hands with.

Judge by concrete results: is your voice being heard on time, in the right places, and are your clients benefiting?Small professional bodies representing lawyers may suffer.

If the Hamilton saga does anything, it will decrease the role of professional lobbyists as movers and shakers and increase their role as information gatherers and back-room boys.

Parliamentary monitoring does not come cheap.

Some of the smaller groups may have to choose between active representation in Parliament by dedicated staff or comprehensive monitoring of legislation.Whatever the future holds, the Law Society's parliamentary unit as a resource remains open to all practitioners.