Having just attended the funeral of John Smith QC MP, it is perhaps not surprising that I should start my penultimate column with some of his last words.

It would be sad if the cross-party recognition of the qualities for which he stood is lost when the emotion dies down.In my January column (see [1994] Gazette, 26 January, 2) I ended by asking: 'Is it too much to ask that the government and Her Majesty's opposition accept that basic legal rights transcend party politics?' In [1994] Gazette, 23 February, 2, I asked if I was naive in asking for a Lord Chancellor who would champion legal services, ignoring the fact that he is a senior member of the cabinet.Whilst accepting the sovereignty of Parliament, why not take out of the direct political arena access to justice, access to health care and education? There are more votes in health and education, but why not start with law, given the number of live issues abroad?I have watched and listened to the government.

I have listened to its ministers giving evidence in the Matrix Churchill investigation.

I have listened to the Lord Chancellor debate in the Lords.

I have heard the home secretary's sermons on criminal justice.

I have today listened to his representative say that conviction of the guilty is as important as acquittal of the innocent, with the qualification that some non-lawyers would consider conviction of serious criminals as more important.We are in danger of justice being peddled as another commodity.

Politicians use it in a populist way, playing on the emotions of their supposed supporters.Apparently at its weakest for many years, this government is failing to recognise that it is harming a profession dedicated to serving this country.

Unlike the post-Thatcher ideology which puts self first, profit next and the customer third, our profession still puts the client first, the firm second and our own individual interests third.When was the last time any of us heard our law officers or the Lord Chancellor get up in either House and unequivocally support solicitors and barristers for the work they are doing? None of us wants or expects to be above criticism; we have gone a long way in correcting and modernising our profession.The Lord Chancellor may not now be able to retreat to the position of previous Lord Chancellors who certainly put justice above politics.

It may be asking too much for him to rise above the hand of the Treasury.

He is a man of great conscience.

I ask him to search that conscience and if he, in his heart of hearts, believes that his political role as Lord Chancellor is more dominant than his other roles, to say so.All parties could then work to create an independent organisation answerable to a ministry of justice which has as its brief, access to justice, with judicial appointments, remuneration and other legal areas as its responsibility.Many great lawyers, including the Lord Chancellor, attended John Smith's funeral.

They could work to establish such a commission in his name.This week I will be in Milan as part of British law week.

Together with representatives from our other legal systems, we will be demonstrating the commercial expertise available to the rest of Europe through our legal offices and from the Bar.

The large commercial city firms (and I do not just mean London) are a credit to our legal profession and serve our country extremely well.

I am hosting a reception as well as speaking, reinforcing our expertise.I k now that these major firms do not forget what the single and small practices give to this country in terms of access to justice, and I am sure the single practitioner and legal aid practitioners sell their colleagues abroad and to their European contacts whenever possible.No foreign country will feel like choosing us in preference to another country if we criticise that country unfairly.

Of course, we have a strong human rights tradition here, which I support totally.

At times we can improve these rights elsewhere by example.

I am thinking of a number of our great companies setting up joint ventures in the third world.

The Chinese are trying very hard, in part through their lawyers, to improve their country and to work with ours.

We should be cautious in our stone throwing.

I hope that recent television programmes do not inhibit the work that is being done between our two legal professions and countries.Last week, I had the pleasure of welcoming the Master of the Rolls to the Law Society.

he performed the annual admissions ceremony when we honour the prizewinners.

For me, these ceremonies are most enjoyable.

It is an opportunity to speak to each of the new admissions and meet their families informally afterwards for tea.Last week we admitted 79 solicitors, including the ten prizewinners - of the ten, nine were women!Finally, may I return to a topic I have mentioned in earlier articles - discrimination - and mention two unconnected and, I hope, isolated instances.The first involves the use of young female solicitors by senior colleagues to entertain business clients.

Most young solicitors are delighted to help the commercial thrust of their firms and give freely of their time.

To use a junior member of staff, even a junior partner, because of their sex is not on.Equally, to sue a young assistant, partner or locum who has been negligent in the firm without very good reason is totally unacceptable.

I think I would only be prepared to consider it if there had been some wilful misconduct of a wholly exceptional nature.

Even then, I doubt if any of us should proceed along that route.