This is my last president’s podium.

In June, I looked back over the year and selected what I felt were some of the Law Society’s key achievements.

Now I want to look forward and give my personal perspective on the future, not just for individual solicitors but for our profession collectively.

It will not come as a surprise that I have worries about the future well-being of the profession, upon whom so many are dependent for help, support and assertion of their rights.

There is an answer to my concerns and it lies in a policy shift by government and the regulators to recognise the importance of all eight of the regulatory principles enshrined in the Legal Services Act, particularly the need for a strong and independent legal profession.

We need to be very clear that the act, while bringing with it significant challenges to the profession, is unambiguous in its commitment to protecting and promoting the public interest; supporting the constitutional principle of the rule of law; improving access to justice; and encouraging an independent, strong, diverse and effective legal profession.

These objectives rank alongside and are just as important as the ones about serving the consumer interest, promoting competition, and increasing public understanding of a citizen’s legal rights and duties.

It is a worry that the government appears to have lost sight of some of those important objectives in its drive to reform the legal services market, where a reduction in headline price is the only marker of success.

Plans to modernise the delivery of legal services will encourage solicitors to become business investors rather than guardians of law and justice.

Retail and insurance giants are not required to serve the public interest as a priority, or even on a par with their duties to investors and owners.

I ask myself what level of thought the government has given to the Legal Services Act’s objectives around improving access to justice when rushing to the introduction of alternative business structures.

These bodies are intended to bring investing corporations to the market, potentially driving out, or making it harder, for the less highly capitalised but local, highly regarded and multi-talented high-street solicitor to practise.

Where the only alternatives to local, personal help are an out-of-town supermarket half an hour’s drive away, or based in a call centre overseas, how does the individual sue the state or a large organisation which has done them wrong, when the government has said it cannot continue state funding through legal aid?

Did the government think about the act’s objectives surrounding the rule of law and access to justice when it proposed the devastating cuts set out in the Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders bill?

When the Law Society provided government with savings that did not undermine access to justice, why were they rejected?

Where is the consumer interest while government tries to push through a bill where the interests of the victims of accidents come second to those of the insurance lobby?

Is the government really thinking about the consumer if it is not prepared to regulate will-writers, allowing anyone to provide this highly personal and confidential service dealing with vulnerable people and situations?

When the government talks about promoting the interests of consumers, we acted and introduced the Conveyancing Quality Scheme.

As president, I have, I hope, convinced the profession and the Law Society to recognise what is at stake.

The Society is opposing legal aid cuts, challenging government reforms to civil litigation funding, and seeking through the Solicitors Regulation Authority to properly regulate ABSs, to ensure that the regulatory framework guarantees high levels of probity and consumer protection, and to maintain the good reputation of the solicitors’ profession built up over decades.

The Society is standing up for solicitors across England and Wales, trying to provide an environment in which their futures, whatever the size of firm, wherever their location and whatever their business model, can adapt and thrive.

I agree with Lord Neuberger when he says that ‘lawyers occupy a particularly special place in society because their field of practice is part of the very fabric of society.... (I) am not saying consumerism has no part to play in the administration and structure of the legal profession, but I am saying that care must be taken to ensure that it does not overshadow, let alone drive out, the importance of the professional-client relationship, or the wider public interest in the rule of law.’

Good, balanced and independent-minded regulation is vital to the health of the profession, and we have not been given the time to develop all the answers.

It is my belief that the interests of the legal world run concurrently with the public interest and the need for a strong and independent legal profession.

That is why the Society must strive to ensure that regulators are focused on the regulatory principles of the Legal Services Act and that those principles are clearly reflected in all regulatory decisions.

I don’t believe that it is in the interests of consumers if foreign owners of law firms cannot be held to account because ‘fitness to own’ tests are inadequate – either not robust enough on entry or not fit for purpose in the course of enforcement.

Where are the safeguards should the profession be undermined or firms called into question simply because the regulatory authorities have not thought through the new regulatory regime in sufficient detail?

Has the time now come for the enforcement of the regulatory regime to be separated from the rule-making and monitoring functions?

And how can proper oversight of the SRA be made more effective?

The profession is accountable at every level and it is fair that the same standard should apply to those who regulate.

The difficulty going forward is that to build on that first foothold we must find better mechanisms of persuasion in a world that is incapable of accepting anything other than individual soundbites and has little appetite for anything that is too complex.

The consumer message is simple – be efficient, cut costs.

It is much harder to explain the value of a strong and independent legal profession than four simple words.

Finally, I express my thanks for all your support in the past year.

I have enjoyed communicating with you through these podiums and sharing my views as events develop.

I have been inspired by many people that I have met and I know that if anyone can succeed in the future legal services market then you can.

Linda Lee is president of the Law Society