The demand for Chancery expertise both on the Bench and at the Bar is buoyant. The Chancery Division of the High Court, comprising the Chancellor of the High Court and 17 Chancery High Court judges, does more work than the civil side of the Queen's Bench Division, and about three times more than the Commercial Court and the Technology and Construction Court combined. In addition, a substantial amount of Chancery business is transacted in the County courts.

The demand for Chancery expertise on the High Court Bench is not confined to London. The regions are equally thriving. In Birmingham alone, since 2001, the number of Chancery High Court hearings has doubled.

To what is this increase in demand attributable? Firstly, it is at least in part to the high quality and versatility of the Chancery judges appointed over the last 20 years or so. Those judges have reacted, efficiently and effectively, to the greater demands placed upon them in terms of the commercial imperatives of the business 'transacted'. For quality, by way of example, one has only to look at the incumbents in the House of Lords – Lords Hoffmann, Scott, Walker, Neuberger, and, until recently, Lords Browne Wilkinson, Nicholls and Millett, all of who practised from Chancery chambers while at the Bar.

Secondly, the nature of Chancery business has changed dramatically. Gone is the Jarndyce v Jarndyce image of the Chancery Bar, and rightly so. And gone are the days when the primary litigation undertaken by Chancery practitioners was uncontested variations of trust. While Chancery business still includes all the work traditionally undertaken by the Chancery Bar, such as probate, trust and property law, charity law and company law, the types of business undertaken has expanded.

In relation to traditional Chancery work, on the advisory side, changes in new inheritance tax rules in the Finance Act 2006 have resulted in the need radically to rearrange how many families hold their wealth. While, on the litigation side, employee benefit trusts (EBTs) are generating a lot of work.

The use of trusts in many modern forms of structured products for pooled investment and credit is a source of additional work. And more generally, over recent years there has been a huge growth in litigation, both domestically and internationally, concerning private family wealth holding structures.

In relation to the new Chancery business, increased commercial activity, both domestically and internationally, has put further demands on the Chancery courts and Chancery practitioners. International mergers, acquisitions, insolvencies and restructurings, pensions collapses, software piracy and confidentiality disputes have led to increased Chancery litigation and in the demand for Chancery expertise in advisory work. International insolvencies, for example BCCI and Maxwell, have spawned much litigation which, in England, has almost exclusively been undertaken in the Chancery Division. A substantial part of our business now comprises, among others, company law, insolvency, banking, competition law, financial services law, commercial contracts, securities law, pensions, intellectual property and revenue law.

It is often overlooked that many of the recent notable cases were heard in the Chancery Division; for example, Douglas v Hello!; Baigent v Random House (The Da Vinci Code); Weir v Secretary of State for Transport (Railtrack); Apple v Apple (Beatles trademark dispute).

That expansion of the nature of the work undertaken in the Chancery Division has occurred is unsurprising. Much of the 'new' work is founded upon concepts and principles of equity and property law, very familiar to Chancery practitioners.

Thirdly, those changes to Chancery business have been embraced by Chancery practitioners. But it is certainly not a case of out with the old and in with the new. There are many who continue the important work traditionally undertaken in the Chancery Division.

Fourthly, solicitors, and others, have recognised the development of Chancery business. Almost any civil dispute not involving matrimonial law, personal injuries, clinical negligence, defamation or ships may be resolved in the Chancery Division with the benefit of representation by members of the Chancery Bar.

The Chancery Bar is understandably very upbeat about its future.