It is a stance that Williamson, wearing his trade union hat, will fight. “I very much hope we can avoid the step of some kind of legal services commissioner because it is not in the best interests of the public. It will be very, very demoralising . . . and the threat of fines does not mean the work will be done better or more quickly.” But complaints, he concedes, are a problem.

The failure to get a grip on the volume of complaints is the reason that the Law Society may find its powers whittled away. Lord Falconer of Thoroton wants a new super-ombudsman to supervise the tackling of complaints in the face of an increase last year from 10,585 to 14,880.

That is not all. Last week the Lord Chancellor launched a review of the way that the legal services market is regulated. Banks and building societies will be able to handle probate; and he favours allowing one-stop shops, in which lawyers form partnerships with other professionals.

So on both fronts — consumer redress and the regulation of solicitors’ conduct, standards and training — ministers look poised to swoop. What is the new president’s battle plan? Williamson, 55, a relaxed and genial civil litigator who also sits as a recorder, is now a consultant with the Lincoln’s Inn law firm Dawsons. But he spent five years chairing the Solicitors’ Indemnity Fund, which pays out on negligence claims, overseeing the move to an open-market insurance system for solicitors. Premiums are on the rise. “I’m keen to encourage the profession to do more risk management to stop complaints being raised in the first place,” he says. “Secondly, more complaints should be dealt with in-house, positively and efficiently, because they’re best handled at source.”

He also backs a public list of solicitors with disciplinary findings against them — a kind of “naming and shaming”. “I’d support that to a limited extent — but not a public record of the number of complaints made.” But there are, though, other factors at work, he says, such as the “greater complaints culture”; and the society’s own “client’s charter”, which tells clients how to complain. And, he says, things could get worse. “If the Government goes on cutting rates for publicly funded work, you’ll get a service more thinly spread, and solicitors cutting corners, and more complaints.”

But if complaints-handling is to be fought for, Williamson is with ministers over moves for greater competition and relaxing the rules so that solicitors can work for supermarkets — the “Tesco law” — as well as one-stop shops. “I’m keen to move forward the debate on competition and on the ‘modernising’ agenda — and to press for further liberalisation of the legal services market overseas.” He also backs plans for a judicial appointments commission — but with no ministerial veto over appointments. And the chair of the new body must be a lay person, not the Lord Chief Justice, he says. He also favours scrapping Queen’s Counsel. “I’m not against an advocates’ accreditation scheme but the costs will be significant — and who’s going to run it? It may be that the costs are not worth it.”

Williamson is not entirely a “rip it up” man, though. Last week he was donning the black gown, collar bands and gold chain of office to admit the latest batch of solicitors to the society — a ceremony he carries out about 30 times a year. “As a matter of tradition I always dress up.” He is not too bothered about wigs, though he thinks there is a case for keeping them in the criminal courts. Either way, there should be a “level playing field”, with the same garb for barristers and solicitors.

He has not come in to a blaze of publicity, nor does his appointment break new ground. But as a steady pair of hands who has been on the society council for ten years, he is tuned into the high street solicitor for whom the battle is not regulation but decent pay rates for legal aid work. It is not just a trade union issue. “This Government pledged to improve access to justice. But many people find it increasingly difficult to get legal aid. There are parts of the country very poorly served because firms are closing down. And there is a real danger we will no longer have a nationwide network of lawyers to do family or criminal work.”

Explore Law

• Corporate Law

• Public Law

• Columnists

• Law Panel

• Student Law

• Law Reports

Times Recommends

• Are top lawyers worth their huge fees?
• Solicitor forced to retire claims 'ageism'
• Drug case failure may be last straw for SFO