Since I last posted this column a momentous event has occurred: I celebrated my birthday. To mark the occasion the Department of Work and Pensions sent me a letter telling me I had been selected by this Government to be among the first to be denied the state pension until I reach 66. In other words, the Government is going to filch a full year's pension from me in comparison to those who are just over a month older. It puts me in mind of the ne'er-do-wells who used to hang around near post offices waiting for the the old folk to emerge every Thursday.

With delicious irony, this act of daylight robbery was communicated to me soon after an article appeared in the Law Society Gazette by its editor-in-chief Paul Rogerson, on the subject of judges' pensions. Under the headline Stop moaning about your pension, m'lud, Mr Rogerson pointed to the unrest among the judiciary because of the scandalous notion that they may like to contribute a little more to their eventual retirement.

He wrote: "Judges have hitherto paid less than 2% of their salaries (in all but a few cases) to accrue a final salary pension at the rate of 1/40th for each year of service, up to 20 years. This is quite staggeringly generous. Let's say you're a judge earning £170,000 a year – halfway up the ladder. For a modest outlay of about £34,000 before tax at current prices, you can retire after 10 years' service on an annual pension of £85,000 for life."

The increased contribution will, it appears, be modest, but there is still talk of legal action.

Another issue causing consternation among the legal elite was the role or otherwise of the Legal Services Board, which seems to be following in the footsteps of Lord Jackson in thinking that if it upsets everybody it must be doing something right. First of all the chair of the Bar Council, Michael Todd QC, called for the abolition of the LSB, saying it had acted beyond its brief and was burdensome. His sentiments were echoed at the same meeting of the bar by Attorney General Dominic Grieve, who had raised the issue with the Justice Secretary.

Mr Grieve said: "The LSB is not exactly flavour of the month with any of the professions. I think there are justifiable concerns that it may at times tend towards micro-management. I do share the bar's concern with that."

No sooner had that attack been rebuffed by the MoJ than the president of the Supreme Court, Lord Neuberger, disagreed publicly with the LSB's chair in his Lord Upjohn Lecture to the Association of Law Teachers.

Speaking of the Legal Education and Training Review, His Lordship said: "I cannot share the view which David Edmonds was reported in The Guardian as expressing in March this year, namely that he would be 'extremely disappointed' if the LETR only made minor recommendations. That suggests a conclusion that major reform is both necessary and proportionate, reached in the absence of any evidence and analysis."

It seems the 'super-regulator', which overarches the regulatory bodies for the various legal professions, is getting it from all sides.

Chris Stokes