Lawyers, it would seem, are increasingly seen as fair game by the tabloid press.

Only a couple of months ago, the Sun devoted part of its front page to legal aid lawyer Mudassar Arani, who in the past has advised controversial Muslim cleric Abu Hamza, (see [2004] Gazette, 13 February, 11).

Ms Arani subsequently took the red-top to the Press Complaints Commission (PCC) over the article.

It has yet to adjudicate.

Last week, it was the turn of the Daily Mail to have a pop on page one at a solicitor, Phil Shiner (6 May).

Mr Shiner, who runs Birmingham-based human rights firm Public Interest Lawyers, is bringing an action for compensation on behalf of 12 Iraqi families whose relatives were killed by British troops during the occupation.

Under an enormous headline 'Anyone else want to sue?', the Mail claimed Mr Shiner 'caused anger and revulsion' when launching the claims.

This was just the start of it as the Mail went on to launch an extraordinary personal attack on Mr Shiner, including comments from an unnamed 'family friend'.

Mr Shiner has told the Gazette that he plans to sue the paper and also take it to the PCC (see news story, page 5).

Elsewhere, the Financial Times covered 'a broadside against over-zealous lawyers who pursue compensation claims', fired by the head of operations at the Health & Safety Executive, Justin McCracken (28 April).

'Right across society people are cautious about suing, about civil litigation as a means of controlling things,' it quoted him as saying.

'All of us in our everyday life see that the lawyers are going to far.'

However, it also added that Mr McCracken's comments 'will raise the eyebrows of some business people, who accuse the Health & Safety Executive of fuelling a compensation culture through an unrealistic attitude to risk'.

A report in The Times (10 May), meanwhile, claimed that the bar has won the battle to keep the title of Queen's Counsel in exchange for accepting a modern selection system that will see QCs submit to regular appraisals.

Out will go the 'secret soundings' and lengthy consultation, and in their place will come a common accreditation scheme for barristers and solicitors, with the title of QC no longer becoming an award for life.

'The reforms, to be announced by the Lord Chancellor, Lord Falconer of Thoroton, within two weeks, will make the selection system more transparent and improve the prospects of solicitors, women and ethnic minorities,' the broadsheet said.

But the position of QC is not the only historic title that is apparently destined for an unlikely reprieve - the 1,000 year-old role of Lord Chancellor also looks set to stay.

According to the Daily Telegraph (6 May), 'that's the buzz coming from the powerful House of Lords select committee currently considering Lord Falconer's Constitutional Affairs Bill'.

The Telegraph predicted that most of the Bill will still be in line with the government's wishes, including the new supreme court and an independent commission to appoint judges.

Lord Falconer will also give up his responsibilities as head of the judiciary and Speaker of the House of Lords.

The problem, the Telegraph said, is that the constitution secretary would 'become a weaker member of the Cabinet - and certainly no match for a tough home secretary, such as David Blunkett'.

'With witnesses pressing him to enhance the status of constitution secretary, he (Lord Falconer) may have begun to realise that the office of Lord Chancellor still carries great authority in government and puts him much closer to the centre of the Cabinet table,' the paper said.

Philip Hoult