Writing shortly after our conference there has not been time to reflect on the outcome.

But my immediate reaction is how friendly it was.

Solicitors from all types of firms and backgrounds exchanged ideas and discussed their areas of practice.We also had the pleasure of welcoming a number of lawyers from other countries.

They had come to London for the opening of the legal year earlier in the same week, and some stayed on for our conference.They divide into two categories: those from the developed world, and those from the emerging democracies of eastern Europe or from the African and Asian continents.Those from the developed world have similar problems to ours.

The lawyer is unpopular, the cost of litigation is thought to be too high, there are too many students wishing to enter the profession, many firms are finding the cost of practice and low fees make their practice unviable.I had hoped that we might have found the answer from our foreign colleagues to our own problems.

Sadly there seems to be no magic solution.

Some take the view that the unprofitable business has to be allowed to fail.

They would argue that this is the result of market forces.

If there are too many firms in the marketplace, there must be a reduction until the numbers left can force prices upwards.Apart from the personal misery this approach allows, it overlooks the fact that there is a huge untapped demand for legal services.

There are solicitors who feel they cannot afford to retire, yet see no hope of improving the profitability of their practice.

I would like us to loo k for ways of helping those solicitors.For the rest, help is available through our Legal Practice Directorate.

Work is being done to help firms find the right technological help at a price they can afford.

Practice management standards may take time to put in place, but the effort is worthwhile according to those firms which have done this.If a job is done well in the first place, you eliminate the cost of putting it right later.

In the long term we should save money on our indemnity fund.

If we can reduce complaints, we could also save some of the cost of running the Solicitors Complaints Bureau, which absorbs about one third of the practising certificate fee.We must also value our services properly.

The idea that the only way to compete is to reduce prices is wrong.

The quality of service is just as important.

I expect many readers will share my distaste at having to find contributions for the compensation and indemnity funds to meet the cost of claims from our colleagues who consistently undercut on both price and quality.

It is unthinkable to remove cover from these firms.

Nevertheless, we need to search for solutions to this problem.

Perhaps further increases in the deductibles will be necessary.On the litigation side we want to help the average citizen to enforce or defend their rights.

This means continuing the search for ways of reducing the cost of litigation.I see this in the context of reducing the work involved in each case, not the hourly rate.

I spelt out some ideas in my speech at the conference.On the subject of time limits I see this as limiting different parts of the case according to limits agreed or imposed at a pre-trial review.

The time may come when we can find fixed time limits applicable to all cases of a particular type but we should proceed cautiously.

In any particular case I would expect the judge to rule how long was available for examination in chief and cross examination, how long for speeches and submissions.

The judge will then ensure that the time limits are kept to.

This would control a number of evils: the difficulty of giving accurate information as to cost; the case which goes on and on with costs escalating; the problem of the next case on the list which is not reached, leaving the parties in that case to bear the additional cost.Solicitors are well trained, we all start with degrees or the long experience and qualification of a legal executive.

We are put through a demanding vocational training course.

We have to undertake two years training on the job.

Most of us, and soon all of us, have to undergo continuing professional development of 16 hours a year.

We have strict rules regarding how we are to run our practices, we are subject to an annual certificate from our auditor and periodic spot inspections from the Law Society's monitoring team.Above all we have in place a system for compensating clients for fraud or negligence which is better than anywhere else in the world.

It is time to stop apologising and to tell the world that solicitors do a good job for their clients.I referred earlier to our colleagues from the developing countries.

They are not criticised by their governments and media.

On the contrary they are seen to be the means whereby commercial activity can be enhanced.

They are seen as the men and women who fight for their clients.

They are the bulwark of the liberty of the citizen.The same is true of us, although it is not recognised.

Sadly, as with many of the good things of life, you recognise them only when you do not have them.

It will be sad for the whole community if the value of lawyers is only recognised when we have to withdraw from working for the individual and have shrunk to a profession which can afford only to represent the commercial client.It is for this reason that I believe that we have to stand up and fight to ensure that the solicitor does survive and that legal services are available for the whole community.