So we lost in R v (1) Legal Aid board (2) Lord Chancellor's Department Ex parte.

Well, that is the official version from the powers that be.

But it is never quite as simple as that.In the eyes of the divisional court, we have performed a 'public service' in bringing the judicial review of the Legal Aid Board's contracting regime, and exposing the scheme to the intense public scrutiny which it demanded.

To anyone sitting in court 27 of the Royal Courts of Justice over the six-day hearing, it was evident that all the detail of the scheme was analysed, even if some aspects were perhaps given less attention than might have warranted.With some satisfaction, we saw the court and the Legal Aid board grappling with what is perhaps the most bureaucratic and contradictory system introduced in this country since the advent of the welfare state.The compensation for our 'loss' is that the board -- and, behind the scenes, the Lord Chancellor -- has been given the strongest of messages from the court that unless it remedies the 'serious weaknesses' in the scheme urgently, it will find itself back in court.The court found that clients were being prevented from gaining access to competent solicitors, that 'very serious hardship' was being suffered, the board's new rules on travel to disabled or mentally ill clients were too restrictive and that the fact that non-family firms such as Mackintosh Duncan are granted tolerance cases which are inclusive, as opposed to additional, is 'absurd'.

If urgent action is not now taken, the board was told, the effect would be contrary to the public interest.Despite its findings, the court refused to declare the scheme unlawful.

Regrettably, only scant reference was made to the fundamental right at common law of unimpeded access to the court.

The upshot is that those without means -- the homeless, the mentally ill detained patient, the disabled child without community care services -- have no right to legal advice and assistance or representation from the state.

The 'impediment' is that they are poor and the state has no responsibility for them.The Lord Chancellor's introduction to the white paper Modernising Justice gave no clue as to the chaos and the hardship that would be suffered by those very persons whom the legal aid system was created to assist.

Lord Irvine stated: 'It is not enough that people have rights: they must be confident they can enforce those rights if need be.

The justice system should serve everyone, regardless of their means.'Those words have a hollow ring when one considers how hard both respondents defended the case, insisting that the chaos caused by the scheme was merely a 'teething problem', and that clients would not be disadvantaged.

That the court refused to declare the scheme unlawful despite its serious criticisms is ironic.There are glimmers of hope.

Perhaps the board will indeed address those serious deficiencies which were so apparent.

It has not so far.

In any event, can this save a scheme which limits case starts and overall payments? By its very nature, the scheme will fall foul of the Human Rights Act 1999 on 2 October 2000, as many categories of clients will establish the right to legal advice and assistance from public funds.

Indeed, the court said that a similar case brought in the autumn might not receive such a 'charitable' reception if the difficulties continue.

Perhaps the 'charitable' course of action would have been to declare the scheme unlawful now, rather than awaiting additional cases of clients who have been turned away at the doors of solicitors and have been severely prejudiced as a result.I do not wish to be sitting twiddling my thumbs having exhausted my case starts or schedule payment limit while clients queue at the door or sleep on the streets.

I am tempted to send them to the Lord Chancellor's doorstep instead.

The court said that these issues are for the future.

They are not.

They are the present.