This week marks the first major sally against the government's proposals on legal aid.

The Law Society is set to join a coalition of advice agencies and civil liberties groups in voicing opposition to the proposals.

That opposition will be directed primarily to the proposal to cash limit the legal aid budget and to award costs against legal aid litigants who lose.Helping to bolster its argument, the Society will have to hand new research that shows that the public does not regard the current budget -- £1.4 billion -- to be excessive.

The research, which will be unveiled fully at a campaigning conference in Cardiff next week, will show a strong desire amongst respondents to preserve legal aid as a social service on a par with other valued social services.

While the respondents were concerned that legal aid should not be wasted -- especially on the apparently wealthy -- they did not share the 'legal aid gravy train' attitude so prevalent in the tabloid press.The conference, which is being jointly held by the Society and the Legal Aid Practitioners Group, will be addressed by Gary Streeter, junior minister at the Lord Chancellor's Department, with responsibility for legal aid.

The results of the research will no doubt be of interest to Mr Streeter who, in the run up to the election, will not want to be seen to undermine a service that is so highly regarded.

The conference will also be an opportunity for Mr Streeter to appeal to, and hear directly from, legal aid lawyers whose co-operation will be needed to implement the reforms whatever shape they take eventually.

Lawyers, in general, accept the need for some reform, but are extremely anxious that their experience of legal aid in practice should be taken fully on board by the policy makers.Reforms of the magnitude contemplated need plenty of time for consideration and while there has been a green paper followed by a white paper, there are high risks in pushing ahead with fundamental change in a climate as politically charged as that in the run up to a general election.A legal aid Bill should therefore be postponed until after the election.

Whatever administration is in power at that time, will be able to embark on reforms in a cool, considered way, in the light of the evidence advanced by the consumer bodies and the lawyers.

Meanwhile, the prospect of a longer timetable for legal aid reform should not be a signal to legal aid practitioners to down tools.

Careful preparations are necessary for a future which is very likely to bring block contracting, with the Legal Aid Board as bulk purchaser making choices amongst suppliers.

Firms which want a share of the action will have to decide how they can best stand out from the pack: a franchise or some other form of accreditation?