The opportunities for the profession have never been greater, but the demands on the profession have never been as tough.I am full of ambition for the profession.

I have no time for the prophets of doom who predict that we will be overrun by estate agents or accountants or whatever.

Society needs solicitors now more than ever before.

The public scrutiny under which we operate has never been so intense.

It is right that it should be this way, because everything we do contributes to the public interest.

We must be there to assist all clients -- from those who need legal aid through to corporate clients in global enterprises.The reputation of the professionIf we want to succeed in the future, we must work hard to engage the understanding of the public about what we do.

We do not want respect simply because we are solicitors -- as if it were an entitlement that came with the job.

But we do want the role of law and its value in society to be respected.

It grieves me and many solicitors that this is no longer so.

The fat cat slur is a symptom of this.The most important role lawyers play in society is in providing access to justice, championing citizens' rights and protecting the individual against the state.

Here in England and Wales we can speak out freely for citizens' rights.

I think, however, of lawyers in other parts of the world who fight for people who have been imprisoned for daring to assert such rights, or who risk imprisonment themselves.

We have the luxury of taking our freedoms largely f or granted.

But that does not mean we should forget about the importance of them.

We cannot keep it that way without lawyers.I am proud that the legal profession contributed £640 million to the UK's invisible earnings last year.

I am proud of the part solicitors play in making the UK a leading economy.

I am proud that while legal aid spending went up by only 1.2% last year, the number of people who were helped went up by 3.2%.

I am proud that -- at a very conservative estimate -- the profession contributes £124 million worth of legal services pro bono a year.

That does not count other charitable involvement.

Look around at any major charitable and civic activity and you will find solicitors have volunteered and signed up to it.This is an appropriate moment to congratulate the Solicitors Pro Bono Group on its first highly successful year in operation.

Last June, the first ever pro bono conference in England was organised by the Solicitors Pro Bono Group.

The then Solicitor General, Lord Falconer, pledged at the conference that the government would not look to the profession's pro bono work as a substitute for legal aid.

I welcome that and we will remind the government of that commitment.We must recognise, too, the unmeasured contribution that many solicitors make through legal aid work.

It cannot strictly be called pro bono, perhaps, because it is not undertaken for free.

But there are many solicitors who, for example, spend five hours, on a client's work, even when they know the Legal Aid Board will only pay for two or three, because the case and the client need the time.Let me comment on the fat cat issue.

I am from a major City firm.

Firms like mine make the transactions happen that enable large corporations to do their business, make money for the UK and keep people in employment.

Firms like mine, with a large international clientele, contribute to making the City a major economic player.

I want to ask some of the critics: would they prefer the work to go elsewhere? Would they prefer the £640 million invisible earnings to go to the economy of Germany or France or the USA?But let's not forget what happens outside the largest firms in the solicitors' profession.

Assistant solicitors in small firms, doing mostly legal aid and private client work who earn, perhaps, £18,000 per year after seven years hard study to qualify.

Some 25% of sole practitioners have a gross income of £23,000 a year -- that is before they've paid income tax and any pension contribution.

And there are equity partners in medium-sized regional firms, carrying a huge burden of personal risk and responsibility who, after 20 years in the profession, earn £50,000.

And let's not forget the long, stressful working hours.

Like everyone else in the economy solicitors have not escaped the competitive pressures.

We now rank among the nation's worst workaholics.The government's agendaWe must make the government understand the value to society as a whole of having lawyers as the guardians of citizens' access to independent legal advice.

I am troubled by the way this Government appears to view justice as a commodity.

Surely access to justice must underpin the values of The Third Way?Legal aidThe government is entitled to value for money in legal aid.

The Law Society has made many sensible suggestions about eliminating waste and fraud from the system.

We have suggested measures that will stop wealthy people using loopholes to qualify for legal aid.

We have proposed controls on QCs' fees.There are far too many myths about legal aid put about by the gover nment.

Myth one is that spending is spiralling out of control.

The fact is that last year legal aid spending increased by 1.2% -- much lower than the rate of inflation.

Total spending on legal aid came in at £43 million less than the government's budget.Another myth is that lawyers are earning more and more from legal aid and less people are being helped.

The truth is different.

Last year, spending on legal aid increased by only 1.2% but the number of cases dealt with went up by 3.2%.

And a third myth: legal aid is wasted on nonsensical, frivolous cases that are a waste of taxpayers' money.

The fact is that 92% of legally aided civil cases are won or settled favourably.The government has modified its initial proposals on legal aid.

It is to be congratulated for having listened to the concerns of the Law Society and the consumer and advice bodies.

But we still have concerns.

Although we welcome conditional fees and believe that they can work well for clients in many cases, they cannot always be a substitute for legal aid.

And the latest phase of proposals could pose new threats to access to justice.

The Law Society is concerned that plans for exclusive and block contracting could become a mechanism for rationing legal aid and restricting choice.Access to justice is a key cornerstone of democracy.

Reducing access would severely undermine many of the achievements of this government, such as the Human Rights Bill.

If you don't know you have rights, they are meaningless.

If you cannot get independent advice and help to enforce those rights, they are worthless.The unknown element of the government's agenda is the community legal service.

Government spokesmen mention it frequently as the palliative for some of the measures that will restrict access to justice.

But they have been silent on the details.

We believe that it will be next January before even a consultation paper is published.

However, the Law Society has a clear view of what a community legal service can be: it should strengthen the existing network of legal services.Preserving rightsOther government measures severely risk undermining justice.

We are concerned about court closures in parts of England and Wales.

There appears to be no transparent criteria for the closures.

In some areas parties now have to travel long distances.

Another disturbing proposal is to remove the right to elect for trial by jury for certain offences.

The Law Society is deeply opposed to changes that would result in anyone who faces loss of liberty or livelihood or reputation being deprived of the right to have their case heard by a jury.The government's agenda has its positive elements.

We support wholeheartedly the civil justice reforms to make the conduct of litigation more efficient, speedy and less costly.

I welcome the fact that the Lord Chancellor has decided to postpone the introduction of the pre-trial fixed cost regime until all the new rules are in place and bedded down.However, the reforms are being introduced piecemeal and are being rushed.

Not all procedures will be ready before the implementation date of 1 April 1999.Rights of audienceThe proposal to grant higher courts rights of audience to solicitors on admission does away with a long standing and unjustified inequality between the two branches of the legal profession.I know that many young solicitors are particularly enthusiastic about the change.

It offers exciting prospects for those solicitors who have long wanted to represent their clients in the higher courts, but have not been able to go through the protracted and expensive qualifying process.

The Law Society will be discussing with the Lord Chancellor's officials the kind of training that will be required before solicitors can exercise these new rights.Issues for the professionThe third element of our future success depends on coming to terms with some difficult choices and issues within the profession:Indemnity insuranceThis is an anxious and daunting time for those firms that have had to adapt to risk banding.

While some 54% of firms have seen their basic contribution decrease because of risk banding, the remainder has faced increases.

And every firm has to contribute to the shortfall.The Law Society set out to consult the profession as thoroughly as possible on the future options for the provision of indemnity insurance cover.

While a small majority of respondents favoured retaining a mutual fund, a substantial proportion of the profession wished to obtain its cover on the commercial market.The Council of the Law Society wants, if possible, to continue to provide indemnity cover primarily through a mutual fund, but to allow firms the choice of obtaining cover on the market.

The policy committee has been asked to report back to the Council by next January on how this can be achieved.

We have instructed external insurance experts to advise us.I am personally committed to finding a way that offers maximum choice.

But if, despite our best efforts, we cannot find a way of combining a mutual fund and other insurers, the Council will have an opportunity to decide between a system of approved insurers and a continuation of the SIF.

Whatever the decision, one thing is clear: firms with really bad records must either reform themselves in pretty short order -- and establish effective risk management procedures -- or be prevented from continuing to practise.Multi-disciplinary partnershipsI hope we will be able to find a satisfactory way to permit MDPs, so that solicitors who believe it would benefit their clients, may practise in that form.

However, we have to protect clients from conflicts of interest.

We have to ensure that clients' matters are kept confidential and that legal advice given to a client of an MDP benefits from legal professional privilege.

Above all, we have to ensure that when solicitor members of MDPs advise or represent a client they are put under no pressure to consider anything other than the interests of that client, apart from complying with their professional obligations as officers of the court.National assembly for WalesWe must ensure that we are able to influence the assembly on matters of law or justice that will affect our clients.

Earlier in the year we established a Welsh affairs working party which is doing excellent work.

And the Law Society has made additional resources available to its office in Wales.Law managementI am pleased that the level of practical support being offered to firms by the Law Society has improved markedly over the past 12 months or so.

We are committed to further improvements and support in this area.

Firms cannot survive without efficient management.Risk management, too, has to be part of every practice that wants to continue.

The vast majority of complaints about solicitors and negligence claims is as a result of failure to manage, not poor legal advice.

Cutting down on the causes of such complaints and claims would be one of the best steps towards enhancing the reputation of the profession.Client careI have reflected a great deal on the message given to the profession last June by Ann Abraham in her first r eport as Legal Services Ombudsman.

She acknowledged the efforts being made by Office for the Supervision of Solicitors (OSS) to deal more effectively with the volume of complaints.

She said, however, that the real breakthrough in improving public confidence in solicitors would come only if solicitors themselves shouldered the responsibility of client care and effective complaints handling.I understand that the OSS intends to propose to the Law Society Council the imposition of a handling fee on firms.

It would be levied when a complaint of inadequate professional service was referred to the OSS and the firm involved had made no proper attempt to deal with it.At first sight this might seem a harsh measure.

And I must emphasise that the Council has not yet considered it.

While a figure of 30,000 complaints seems high, it has to be set against an estimated 12 million transactions a year.

Too often solicitors act like lawyers when they receive a complaint.

There are, of course, a small number of vexatious complaints and it would clearly be wrong to make firms pay for failing to conciliate these.

But we must make all firms realise that it is good business sense to deal with a complaint as quickly and as amicably as possible.Law Society reformCustomer Focus research earlier in the year told us that members of the Law Society wanted the Society to be more relevant.

Members said that they wanted the Society to be more decisive, to be less bureaucratic and to promote strongly the reputation of the profession.A huge joint effort of office holders, Council members and Law Society staff is underway to forge a better way of running the Law Society.

In December, the Council will, I hope, decide on proposals for change.We want a decision making structure that will enable the Council to fulfil its proper role in leading the profession and setting the direction of policy.

An executive committee will oversee the day-to-day implementation of the Council's decisions.

The large committee structure will be rationalised.