It has not been a great couple of weeks for the government's legal chiefs.

First, the Solicitor-General, Harriet Harman, was forced on to the defensive after her solicitor sister forwarded her sensitive court papers.

Her sister was subsequently told by a judge that she had committed contempt of court (The Guardian, 24 March).

Ms Harman admitted passing on the papers to Margaret Hodge, the minister for children, but said it was on the legal advice of her department.

It was then the turn of the Lord Chancellor, Lord Falconer, who earned a rebuke from a parliamentary watchdog after he disciplined a whistle-blower who gave evidence to a House of Commons committee (The Independent, 2 April).

He was accused of 'contempt' of Parliament after he suspended Judy Weleminsky, a member of the Children and Family Court Advisory Support Service.

However, MPs on the standards committee agreed that no further action should be taken.

A new fixed-fee regime for legal aid on high-profile trials - introduced last Thursday - saw the bar go on the offensive, with warnings that there would be an exodus of barristers willing to do the work.

A BBC news on-line article asked whether the public should have any sympathy (1 April).

'Barristers are threatening to strike over attempts to reduce the amount of public money they receive.

They claim they face pay cuts of up to 50%, but do we really need to feel sorry for them?

'Despite the wigs and the gowns and the widespread idea that barristers live the kind of well-cushioned life the rest of us can only dream of, the Bar Council claims the reality is far more humdrum.'

The Times, throwing in quotation marks liberally, said that the rates will 'mean barristers earning as "little" as 20 an hour' and 'Queen's Counsel will earn "only" 48 an hour' (5 April).

A Bar Council spokesman was quoted as saying 'I pay my cleaner 12 an hour.' Maybe the time will come when the rates converge and we will see the makers of Toilet Duck set up an advocacy arm.

Speaking of the possibility of legal practices owned by non-lawyers, Marketing Week took a look at the prospects of Tesco Law (18 March).

It suggested that companies other than the RAC might be put off by the negative images associated with hiring a solicitor.

'Brand values such as "expensive" and "no guaranteed outcome" are not the sort that Tesco, Virgin and Lloyds TSB would want attached to their name.

"Get divorced at Tesco" is hardly a positive message for the supermarket.'

However, Simon Knox, Cranfield School of Management professor of brand marketing, said he thinks Tesco Law is a great idea.

'Such deregulation can only increase the availability of legal services.

It brings them to the people, as has happened with financial services.'

A case, then, of bringing law, not culture, to the masses.

Philip Hoult