Pessimists predict that law firms which have not already taken steps to ensure their own computer systems are millennium compliant will be potential victims of the global marketplace meltdown on Black Tuesday -- the first working day after the millennium.

But all solicitors can be happy in the knowledge that a wealth of work will inevitably be generated by the fai lure of businesses in other sectors to 'beat the bug'.This work is unlikely to be small fry.

The Financial Services Authority recently reported that one of the biggest banks -- which it refused to name because of the devastating effect such an announcement would have on the banks' shares -- had completely failed to ensure millennium compliance.A key element in any such litigation will be establishing the date by which companies ought to have known about the bug and taken preventative measures.

Infotech lawyer and Y2K specialist Mark O'Connor, a senior solicitor at City firm Bird & Bird, says: 'Once the date is established by a test case there could be a rush to file claims, which could turn into a class action.

If the judges allowed this to happen, there could be a flood of litigation.

However, in these sorts of situations the government tends to step in and change the law'.This month the US Congress passed legislation to deal with the millennium bug.

This bill limits the ability to bring class -- multi-party -- actions to cases where there are material defects in the provision of a product or service affected by the millennium bug.Although some retrospective claims have already been filed in the US, the limit of six years on filing claims means solicitors will have time after Black Tuesday to consider their strategies.Anyone filing a claim now is shooting in the dark, as no-one can predict what is going to happen.

Some argue that the bug will be a damp squib, and that it has been hyped by IT consultants, companies which want consumers to upgrade their electronic equipment and lawyers in order to profit.

However, the Red Cross has advised people to prepare for Y2K in the same way that they would for a tornado.Those who are not prepared to start stashing tins and candles in the cupboard under the stairs will still need to take measures now to ensure that nobody can claim that they negligently refused to take the bug seriously.'Make sure you're talking to your surrounding business partners, consumers and suppliers, and people sideways like banks and insurers,' advises Mr O'Connor.

'Ask them whether they have checked that their systems are millennium compliant.

If you take enough reasonable steps and show you've taken the risk seriously you shouldn't be liable.'Mr O'Connor is part of a team putting together a showcase at the Solicitors Law Festival in October to illustrate the multiple legal fallout from the bug.

This showcase will dramatise a fictional scenario involving Roboflex, an imaginary company which manufactures electronic consumer goods.

In the example, after Roboflex fails to ensure millennium compliance of its out-of-date computer software, disasters hit the company, with exploding microwaves burning down consumers' houses and millions of pounds being lost as shares and sales plummet.In the showcase, panellists will take the roles of judge, experts, defendants -- such as Roboflex, its auditors, insurers and distributors -- and the claimant -- employees, shareholders and consumers.

Robert Webb QC, the general counsel and head of government and industry affairs at British Airways, will play the part of Roboflex, while Marlene Winfield of the National Consumer Council will speak on behalf of public and corporate consumers.One of the facilitators will be US Y2K guru Alan Rabkin, the general counsel, compliance officer and senior vice-president of SierraWest Bancorp, a California and Northern Nevada bank holding company regulated by the Federal Reserve Bank.

Mr Rabkin is considered an expert in the corporate di sclosure aspects of the Y2K problem and on the obligations of US banks and other financial institutions regarding Y2K compliance.The debate on the hypothetical scenario of the litigation fallout from the Roboflex fiasco aims to highlight legal issues ranging through duty of care, contract terms, disclosure, jurisdiction and personal injury to guarantees.Mr O'Connor, who will be playing the part of the auditor, says: 'There will be lawyers at the conference who will have a passing acquaintance with the issues but who won't have looked through them in detail.

The main issues which the session will throw up are contract law and product liability -- for example, the company may try and pass liability up the chain to their suppliers -- and the issue of whether there is a duty of care and whether it has been exercised.

It is important to realise that the company's lawyers may end up being defendants to a negligence action if they were responsible for checking the contracts.

I would find it strange if a contract which I was presented with now as an IT lawyer didn't mention Y2K compliance, but I still see them'.