Next year the Society will be marking the 150th anniversary of the grant of its first royal charter.

A history is being written by a distinguished social historian, Professor David Sugarman.

I suspect the study will paint a fascinating picture of the relationship between the Society and the profession on the one hand and the government and the Society on the other.The past couple of years have done much to provide up-to-date illustrations of a dilemma that has faced the Society in these relationships throughout its history.Take legal aid.

When the Society took a strong stance on standard fees in criminal c ases, most visibly when the Lord Chancellor spoke at Central Hall, Westminster, in February 1992, the stock of the Society with the profession undoubtedly improved.The same cannot be said of relations with the Lord Chancellor's Department or the Treasury.

Many would applaud that as a sign of success - at last an indication that the leaders of the profession had backbone.

No longer, of course, do we receive those annual letters complaining about the Society's lack of success in negotiating legal aid rates because the President of the day was too keen to preserve his knighthood.The feeling remains, though, in the profession that the Society will never do enough to represent the interests of the profession against the government.

That experience at Central Hall certainly gave the Society the space and the confidence from the profession to confront the government over the subsequent proposals to change eligibility for legal aid.But such a strategy has risks which the profession in most instances would prefer to ignore or reject.

At the political level, to gain a useful result it is necessary to demonstrate on most occasions an understanding of what the government is trying to achieve, coupled perhaps with the recognition that even governments of a different hue would have similar aims.

Even governments with small majorities fight hard to preserve the principles of their proposals; however, they, and especially their officials, are much more sympathetic to those who have constructive and realistic ways of achieving the same broad ends as the government.

A professional body that only ever says what its members want to hear will eventually be found out by a disillusioned membership.However, sometimes strong public rhetoric, like the thunder after an intolerably muggy summer's day, can help to clear the way for more reasoned and constructive negotiation.

I observed this phenomenon over franchising.

I pay special tribute to Robert Winstanley from the Council and Russell Wallman and his colleagues on the staff who worked with great resilience and sensitivity to achieve worthwhile improvements.

I can understand the tension and anger that the whole affair will have caused in the Legal Aid Board.

It, too, has shown some magnanimity.

Quiet diplomacy will always seem too cosy for some but, for me, constant public name calling on every conceivable issue induces even greater cynicism and is usually counter-productive.The challenges facing litigation and legal aid are so complex that only a co-operative approach has any chance of success, whether that success is measured by saving taxpayers' money; ensuring that lawyers are properly rewarded; that clients are properly served; or potential political disasters are avoided.Faced with the inevitability of change, it is normally not weak-minded but sensible for the professional body to prepare its members for change in the best ways it can whilst still arguing about the detail of proposals.The practice management standards have these aims, as do the Society's various schemes for specialisation, as well as the promotion of continuing professional education.

Twenty years ago each of these ideas would have seemed to be an unwarranted intrusion into professional life.

They are still seen in this light by some, although I suspect a much larger number just carries on with it.To quote a recent letter from a Wessex firm inundated with work after the launch of Accident Line: 'Whilst, therefore, on some occasions, particularly in the provinces, we may feel that if the Law Society is representing anyon e then it is certainly not solicitors, on this occasion credit is certainly due.'The other example I would offer is in the field of conveyancing.

Legal aid and conveyancing are more connected than the profession may always realise or the government is prepared to acknowledge.

The existence of scale fees produced incomes that led relatively few practitioners to complain about legal aid pay rates because what most lost on litigation was more than made up for by income from conveyancing.The return of scale fees is an unreasonable expectation and yet it is shared by substantial numbers of the profession.

I mentioned this to two respected senior managing partners who could not believe that members of the same profession could be living under such an illusion.Governments, however, choose to ignore the truth that if you take the hidden subsidy from one area of service it will have an impact on the ability to provide another.

Closer control of legal aid costs and the abolition of scale fees were not, therefore, individually intrinsically wrong but, taken together, they spell a rather dire future for many high street practitioners with a very high possibility that the number of outlets for the public to receive reliable legal services will substantially reduce over the next ten years.

We are now witnessing the progressive decline and eventual disappearance of a substantial number of legal practices.The Society, like Canute, is wise enough to know the limits of its powers but risks the same vilification.

It can best promote the interests of its members by aligning them whenever possible with those of the public.

Its task is therefore to help those who help themselves and to raise the standards of public debate above the level of naked self-interest.