Sole practitioners have been the whipping boys of the solicitors' profession over the last few years.

Blamed for increasing levels of default and fraud, painted as little more than cowboys with legal qualifications, some larger firms have virtually held them wholly responsible for the low public esteem of the entire profession.But sole practitioners are fighting back.

And the embodiment of that 'fed up and don't want to take it any more' attitude is the new chairman of the Sole practitioners group, David O'Hagan.Head of a four fee-earner firm in Bristol, Mr O'Hagan maintains that his one overriding mission while in the SPG chair is to influence other lawyers' mentalities.

'I am anxious to change the profession's perception of sole practitioners,' he says enthusiastically.

'There are an awful lot of sole practitioners who run competent and worthwhile practices, both in the high street and from home.

Some are generalists, some are niche practitioners.

That has got to be promoted throughout the profession.'Indeed, the history of the young group is itself a reflection of how bullied sole practitioners have felt.

Established three years ago, the SPG received official Law Society recognition after a year and a half of fervent campaigning.Chancery Lane had set stringent pre-recognition conditions, forcing the group to prove that it could organise itself into a national executive committee and sub-committees which would benefit from Society funding.

Group leaders under the guidance of the original chairman -- London lawyer Arnold Rosen -- were able to meet that requirement 18 months ago.

The SPG now receives a £10,000 annual grant from Chancery Lane, but one of Mr O'Hagan's tasks is to push for an increase in funding.He reckons that with up to 4000 members -- a figure which is rising steadily -- and no subscription fees, the group needs more money to run its modest programme of four annual national executive meetings and sub-committee meetings, a bi-annual newsletter and a London annual general meeting.Mr O'Hagan is clear that the group was originally set up as a response to sole practitioner bashing.

'We had to counter the appalling publicity and inaccuracy surrounding the cost of default,' he says.

'That point has been addressed and we have achieved a better profile now as a result of the figures that have come out which show that it is not just sole practitioners who are the bad boys.'While cost of default was the issue that triggered the group's birth, Mr O'Hagan points to a more general and profound reason for its existence.

'There was a perception -- which still lingers -- that we do anything and everything and that most of us merely have an Amstrad on the kitchen table.

There is nothing wrong with doing law from home, but the wiser sole practitioners do not tackle anything and everything.'The key to changing ingrained perception s is communication.

Mr O'Hagan predicts that myths about sole practitioners would dissolve quickly if lawyers from smaller and larger firms mixed more frequently.

In that sense, Chancery Lane recognition for the group has been vital.

Greater involvement at local law society level is also seen by Mr O'Hagan as a crucial ingredient.'There is no point in trying to snipe at the Law Society from outside.

We must work from within and present balanced, considered views upon the matters affecting the profession.'Sole practitioners must get out of their cocoon and become involved in mainstream legal life.

That way the rest of the profession will see that we are not just a load of cowboys and loonies.'Such a conciliatory approach has won Mr O'Hagan a minority of critics from within his own group.

He readily admits that some sole practitioners regard him as a Law Society 'poodle and lackey'.

But, he says, those assessments are made by what he regards as the ill-informed.

'A lot of criticism of Chancery Lane has come from people without knowledge of the overall picture.

They do not have a balanced view.'Much of that criticism was well aired during the recent Society presidential elections -- a poll which Mr O'Hagan says should never have taken place.

Instead, he supports an annual vote for deputy vice-president, claiming 'you need to get some proper experience under your belt before assuming the mantle of President or chairman of any organisation'.Nonetheless, Mr O'Hagan is cautiously welcoming of the programme of new president Martin Mears.

'On the face of it, his policies may benefit high street practices, but I am slightly sceptical as to whether they can be wholly carried through.'Indeed, the practice issues which concern Mr O'Hagan most are essentially legal aid, specialist panel membership and conveyancing.

He is convinced that it is Lord Chancellor's Department policy to restrict the number of firms providing a legal aid service.

Likewise, he is equally certain that such a policy would be 'a disaster for the profession and in particular for sole practitioners'.There is not, he says, a single firm on the group's executive committee that has qualified for a legal aid franchise -- a result not of their incompetence, but an indication of the way in which the criteria are prejudiced in favour of larger firms.

More or less the same phenomenon applies to membership of the specialist panels, he says.'There is a problem in the drafting of all these criteria -- no-one has considered a small practice or a sole practitioner when the rules and requirements were being set up.'Specialist panels are beginning to accept that a lot of the requirements cannot and need not be complied with by sole practitioners.

With a bit of robustness one can say to the panels or to the Legal Aid Board "I may not have this experience but you can see that I am nevertheless competent and you should exercise a discretion."'Conveyancing is in a state of crisis, says Mr O'Hagan.

Price cutting is out of control and Chancery Lane should adopt a set of fee guidelines for the public as soon as possible.

After serving ten years in the Army, during which he saw tours in Northern Ireland and Germany, Mr O'Hagan qualified as a solicitor in 1981.

After finishing articles, the native Bristolian vowed never again to become a small cog in a large organisation so he set up shop on his own a decade ago.

'I like my independence -- as do most sole practitioners.'1995