Whether the 'McLibel' case is viewed as a struggle by the dedicated but penniless environmental campaigners Dave Morris and Helen Steel against a huge international corporation, or as the hijacking of an antiquated legal system by publ icity-grabbing litigants in person, it will not easily be forgotten.Out of the limelight, but at the heart of the longest trial in English legal history, were two very different solicitors, whose career histories reflect what has been described as the case's 'David and Goliath' nature.Representing McDonalds was Patti Brinley-Codd, a partner at City firm Barlow Lyde & Gilbert.

Meanwhile, running the McLibel Support Campaign from a tiny flat in Holborn, was Dan Mills, who qualified in the City but opted to become an environmental campaigner.Ms Brinley-Codd is a former barrister who requalified as a solicitor while working in-house for ICI.

She is not a libel specialist but has carried out a mixed bag of litigation.She has little doubt why the McLibel case lasted so long.

'A large part of the case was struck out by Mr Justice Bell at first instance,' she recalls.

'On appeal [the defendants] tried to get it back in and the Court of Appeal changed the law, and said that in cases of free speech evidence took many different shapes and forms.

This allowed them to cross-examine our witnesses at length, other on the basis of something they picked up from a newspaper.'Ms Brinley-Codd plays down the effect of the case on her career, a case which originated more than ten years ago and has recently involved seeing herself dramatised alongside Richard Rampton QC in a Channel 4 reconstruction of the hearings.

She says: 'I learnt things I didn't know beforehand about the rainforests and nutrition.

But I don't want to suggest I didn't have interesting cases before and that I won't again.'On the other side of the courtroom was Dan Mills, who became a vegan before starting his articles at Lovell White Durrant.

'When I was working with Lovells I was not happy with the corporate world and wanted to do something more worthwhile,' Mr Mills says.

'I had been there about six months before I heard about the McLibel case.

It really interested me because it combined the issue I am passionate about with the legal side of things.'Mr Mills started going to McLibel meetings in March 1994.

He agreed to act as co-ordinator of the McLibel Support Campaign, bombarding the media with press releases on recycled paper.

'The courts are not geared up for litigants in person,' he says.

'The whole system is designed for barristers.

Helen and Dave felt unwanted at first.

It was clear to us what McDonalds' motive was in getting rid of the jury.

They felt the case would get less publicity as a result.'Mr Mills is confident that Mr Justice Bell's verdict will not mark the end of the McLibel case.

Having co-ordinated the campaign for three years, he expects to stay in the role for at least another year.

And what does the judge think of it all? Mr Justice Bell became a recorder in 1980 and a High Court judge in 1993.

He points out that before the McLibel trial began he had already heard a number of cases, including a libel case.'With the wisdom of hindsight I wish I had decided before the trial exactly what each part of the leaflet meant, because that would have enabled me to eliminate some evidence which I held not to be relevant,' he says.'The trial would have been shorter -- how much shorter I can't say.

But however it was run, and even if both sides were legally represented, the trial would still have taken a very long time.

One spends 30 years at the Bar and on the bench in an ethos where practitioners are encouraged, in the public interest, to dispose of litigation as soon as possible.

It does not give me any pleasure to have gone into the record books as the judge who presided over the longest case in English legal history.'The judge emphasises that the case may not be over, in that both sides have until 17 July to make applications for injunctions or for costs.

However, it is clear he is looking forward to returning to a mixed bag of work -- starting next week with a rape trial followed by two murders.On the positive side, Mr Justice Bell admits that the case was interesting in many aspects.' I know much more about the physical and human geography of Guatemala, Costa Rica and Brazil than I ever dreamt of,' he says with a smile.MCLIBEL: THE TIMETABLE (SO FAR)-- 1985: First version of What's Wrong with McDonald's? leaflet appears-- 1986: Second version in circulation-- Sept '90: McDonald's issue proceedings-- Jan '91: Three of the five defendants apologise-- Dec '93: McDonald's secures trial by judge alone-- March '94: The Court of Appeal overturns a decision to strike out part of the defence-- Dec '96: The trial ends after 313 days-- 19 Jun '97: Mr Justice Bell awards McDonald's damages of £30,000 against Mr Morris and £27,500 against Ms Steel.

The defendants promise to appeal to the European Court of Human Rights.