To rephrase a famous saying, 'a campaign is a long time in politics'.

This one started at a tangent, skewed by the issues surrounding the resignation of the Vice-President, and Martin Mears' outburst of vilification in the national press, as he let the real outrage of Law Society officers' complacency go unchallenged.His approach has been to condemn the Law Society on the sidelines while remaining in a state of detachment or ignorance, but it is not the stuff that solutions are made of.

Our raison d'etre as a liberal profession is to analyse a problem and propose a solution.

Mr Mears and Mr Sayer will have none of this.

They unashamedly peddle simplified versions of the problems and then, like fairground boothkeepers, provide you with a whizzo guaranteed patent remedy.I cannot bring myself to believe that this is what our profession has come to.

Let us look at their three card trick.Card one shows 'ill fortune' - they tell us at length in their manifesto and position papers what is wrong: we are 'not financially secure'; 'there is a never-ending pressure on fee income'; 'outside pressure groups get priority'; 'conveyancing fees are too low'; 'we have pitiful fee levels in legal aid work'; 'they do not cover overheads'; 'the government (and public) complain that the legal aid bill is out of control'; there is an 'over-supply of lawyers'; there is 'over-regulation of the profession'; there is a 'disgruntled minority of clients with groundless complaints'; 'we finance the SCB'; '50% of claims on the SIF arise from conveyancing, costs being £100 million a year'; 'we have to pay for this'; 'firms can be let down by their bookkeepers and get in a muddle'; and so on.Card two shows 'the grim reaper'.

It is always the Law Society's fault.Card three shows 'good fortune'.

It is simply the reverse of card one.

Mr Mears and Mr Sayer will 'restore profitability' (which) 'reduces claims on the indemnity and compensation funds' and 'improves our quality of life'; 'the (conveyancing) client has to pay more'; 'we have to earn sufficient profits to invest'; 'the government must practise basic financial prudence' so it 'could afford to fund a proper legal aid system'; 'politicians of all parties must treat us fairly'; 'the number of training places must be slashed'; the restored profitability will 'reduce financial irregularities and make rules and regulations unnecessary'; clients will not be 'encouraged to complain'; and the 'workload and cost of the SCB will be reduced at a stroke'; conveyancing clients should pay an insurance levy to offset the cost of negligence'; and 'this will be made palatable to them'; and so on.So there you have it.

The obverse of the problem is the solution.

Mr Mears and Mr Sayer will sell you dreams.

Small wonder then that they came across so lamentably on the hustings when pressed on any issue and can resort only to illusion and unashamed populism.

They call it democracy.None of this would matter if they were simply posturing from the sidelines, but they are actually purporting to lead the profession, most of whom are ahead of them and many of whom (the commercial firms) might simply declare UDI if they thought that the Boys' Own Annual were at the helm.The Law Society has in fact collectively researched, questioned, surveyed, written papers, explored solutions and rejected options way beyond what Mr Mears and Mr Sayer could hope to come up with in their few months' experience.Why, then, is the Law Society perceived as so ineffectual and irrelevant? Ineffectual for many because its leadership has lost the trust of the profession so that what they say is met with cynicism.

The apathy evidenced by the poor turn-out at the hustings, or even to vote shows that the establishment is viewed with derision.

Irrelevant for others because, particularly for large commercial firms, the Society is preoccupied with an ageing high street, harking back to palmier days.

The younger solicitors have largely been ignored.

The Council does not reflect a profession which is increasingly specialised and employed, whether in local government, commerce and industry or in private practices and which, because of the over-supply, lives with both burnout and job insecurity.The governance of the profes sion is compromised and dispirited; Mr Hodge epitomises this on the hustings.

He differentiates himself from my five years on the Council by pointing to his 11 years, but he cannot show what that difference in years spent getting to the top has achieved for the profession.

The Society must be properly representative of and responsive to the make-up of the profession as it now is - not as it once was.My message is that great changes are needed to face the future and survive - both within Chancery Lane and within the profession itself.

That requires the energy, courage and ability to push them through.

That is what I can offer.

I am standing for President because I care about the profession and want to get started on those changes before it is too late, not because I want to host the dinners in return for services rendered.Much of what I say is not comfortable - not for the government, the Lord Chancellor, the Council, nor the profession.

I am not seeking to woo votes with false dawns or a false prospectus.

We have to help ourselves because surely no one else will.

Clients will not pay more, they will not stop complaining if they have had a poor service, fees will not double, students will be disappointed until the market finds its new level, changes will keep coming.We can still keep ahead and survive but only if we face the challenges and are more imaginative in our organisation and marketing.

We must examine our structures to re-target our services, find ways to get overheads down, computerise and standardise, play to our skills, network with other firms for services we do not offer, specialise, get accredited to practice management or skills standards, cut out waste and pomposity, train paralegals, re-examine traditional ways to provide clients with the end result they want, eliminate negligence and delay, gear up and reduce unit costs whatever our field of work.The Law Society's role is twofold: to be relevant, approachable, helpful and businesslike, so that solicitors will want to respond in good spirit, will feel it is actively on their side and will want to get involved in running their show at all levels, from the regional to the national.

Secondly, it must vigorously oppose changes which are manifestly wrong for the public and therefore for the profession, such as the government's legal aid proposals.I will be, as ever, outspoken in support of our interests and fearless in standing up for the profession.

I offer neither palliative nor sleeping draught.

I will use my energies to reform the Council and revitalise the profession and to restore the lost trust.Time has been wasted.

There is much to be done.

If you give me the mandate for change we can make a breakthrough.