In an editorial the day after the Lord Chancellor's statement to the Social Market Foundation on 11 January, the leader writer in The Independent wrote: 'The days when the state was prepared to sign blank cheques for Britain's professionals are nearly over.

Managers in new privatised companies must show a profit.

Universities have to compete fiercely for funds and students.

Civil servants face market testing.

NHS doctors must increasingly answer to accountants for every penny spent.

Now late in the story, it is the turn of the m'learned friends to face financial reality.' He went on to characterise legal aid lawyers as 'living off the fat of the legal "pork barrel"'.Oh dear, something has gone wrong with our public relations when legal aid is seen by society at large as a 'pork barrel for fat cat lawyers', rather than as an essential benefit to provide access to justice for those unable to pay.

The fact is that the legal aid budget is seen by politicians and the public as 'spiralling out of control'.The writing has been on the wall for legal aid practitioners for some considerable time.

It is inevitable that there will be radical reform of the legal aid system, whatever the political complexion of the government.

Furthermore, it is difficult to challenge the Lord Chancellor's analysis, first that the only controls of legal aid expenditure at the moment are the inappropriately blunt weapons of eligibility, rates of pay and scope and, secondly, that the legal aid budget is not necessarily spent on those most in need.We must all be wary of attempts to put an artificial cap on legal aid expenditure, particularly in an age of increasing crime, family breakdown, and the constant stream of new legislation making increasing calls on a finite budget.

There is also the prospect of the 21st battered wife coming into the office at the wrong time of the year, only to be told that the funds have run out.

Nevertheless, there must be a better way of rationing scarce funds.It was with some trepidation that I attended the Social Market Foundation to hear the Lord Chancellor speak.

Yet I found his proposals more palatable than I had expected, particularly as he emphasised that his ideas were only preliminary and that he welcomed discussion and consultation.I was pleased that an attempt is to be made to prioritise legal aid expenditure and to give preference to expenditure on social welfare law, eg housing, employment, immigrat ion.

We are all aware of many areas of need that simply cannot be met at the present time, eg social security tribunals, employment tribunals and hearings before immigration adjudicators.

There is at least the possibility of funds being available for such purposes under these proposals.I was also pleased that he wished to build on the strengths of the present system, and in particular that quality of provision would be emphasised.

I am afraid that those who are opposed to franchising are burying their heads in the sand.

It is difficult to see what public interest argument can be raised against a quality assured service.I am not automatically opposed to his suggestion of block funding, particularly as he emphasised that there would be sufficient contracts to ensure that there would be no monopolies, that there would be a range of choice for the consumer, and that the contracts would not be awarded solely on price criteria.Obviously there is still a lot of flesh to put on the bones.

How will local legal services committees work, for example? How will the cake be cut up? There are also less agreeable proposals.

I was alarmed at the suggestion that every claimant, no matter how poor, should make a basic contribution before legal aid is granted.

That would undoubtedly prevent many people having access to justice.I also feel that if there is going to be an attempt to cap funds, the cost to the legal aid budget of bringing in new legislation, eg the Children Act or the duty solicitor scheme, must be taken into account, as must the rising crime levels and the increasing problems brought by the breakdown of families.

I am also concerned at the prospect of only a few criminal firms being able to represent defendants in the magistrates' courts.

I do not see how that can be in the public interest.Nevertheless, I do believe that the proposals provide a good basis for discussion on how the legal aid system can be better targeted to those in most need.

Perhaps a new, more flexible system could even find ways of funding alternative dispute resolution if that were the most effective way of dealing with cases.As a legal aid lawyer who has worked in Toxteth for 20 years, I believe that a constructive response to the Lord Chancellor's proposals will help demonstrate that we are not just out for number one, and that we put the interests of the hard pressed communities in which we work ahead of anything else.There is no doubt that the legal aid system needs reform to be made more flexible to serve the needs of the public.

I hope that the legal profession will work constructively with the Lord Chancellor's Department and the Legal Aid Board to make these proposals produce a legal aid system which the public will see as fair, and not just there to line the pockets of lawyers.

That, rightly or wrongly, is their perception at the present time.

If the profession reacts in its usual wholly negative fashion then we deserve all we get.