Letters to the editor

Until this afternoon I had sympathy with colleagues who specialise in claimant personal injury work; that was until I received an unsolicited call from a north-west firm. About 18 months ago, my vehicle was involved in a collision where a car collided with my driver’s door, causing damage. I was not in the vehicle at the time; I was in the pub having a quiet pint. The only person caused any form of distress or upset was my wife – it was her car. The cost of repair was dealt with between insurers.

I was therefore surprised to receive a call this afternoon on my mobile phone from a private number. I am a criminal defence solicitor so assumed it was the police station calling me. It was not. I was asked by a gentleman whether I had had an accident in the last two years. I confirmed that I had reported the above incident and was surprised to be told the insurance company had put ‘£1,850 pounds to one side’ for injuries.

I informed the caller that I had suffered no injury and had not reported any. He advised that injury included not only physical injury but also ‘distress, upset and psychological injury’. I repeated my comment. He asked whether I was certain I had not suffered any form of injury. I informed the individual concerned that I had not (although I was becoming increasingly ‘upset’ by his call).

I informed him that I was a solicitor and objected to the call and its tone. He replied that he did not believe me because, and I quote,‘we act for firms all over the country and I don’t believe you are a solicitor’. At that point I told him to send the money back to the insurance company, put the phone down and got back to my work. I now wish I had taken his firm’s details.

This call was unsolicited. I had never reported any form of injury, and yet nearly two years later I receive a call effectively urging me to commit a fraud from a firm of solicitors or claims managers (I know not). Is it any wonder the media and government accuse us of being greedy and ‘doing anything for a quick buck’? I always argue against such allegations and yet today I have received a call which exemplifies the very worst of our profession.

Such unsolicited encouragement to commit fraud, I am afraid, will make me think twice the next time I seek to defend the reputation of my colleagues in the RTA claimant PI profession. For me it is a sad day.

Rob Barley, QualitySolicitors Norton Peskett, Lowestoft

You report the excellent news that of the 25 highest-earning criminal legal aid firms, only a tiny minority will sign the new contract. This shows that, at long last, our branch of the profession has found its spine. Governments have respect only for those who fight hard, as our medical colleagues know. It may, however, be too little and too late.

What spoils the scene is that those firms will sign, in spite of them accepting that the contracts are economically unviable. It sounds like a barmy business model to me, but then I gave up criminal law as unviable years ago and never regretted it.

Thus the government will be encouraged to press on, expecting that solicitors will, as usual, find working at a loss better than finding a job outside the law or not working at all. Even if enough firms do not sign, the government expects that enough out-of-work solicitors will sign up with Stobart to do long hours at rock-bottom pay. It is a depressing thought but the problem is, they will.

John O’Donnell, senior partner, odonnells solicitors, Preston

Am I alone in thinking, after qualifying 40 years ago, that what was then a profession which justified and duly received public respect has degenerated into a dog-eat-dog environment?

We already know that larger firms and conveyancing factories sell their souls to estate agents, developers and mortgage providers for a pittance (in some cases inflating their fees so as to be able to afford the kickback required by those providing the work). Worse things than that are now par for the course.

I am currently acting for clients purchasing a property taken by a well-known developer in part exchange, and the developer’s sales representative has attempted to persuade them to engage the services of their solicitor on the promise of giving them a £250 incentive. It beggars belief that there are solicitors who will accept work in such circumstances, in the knowledge that the client’s business has been bought.

It raises the question of why we continue to deceive ourselves in believing that we are members of a profession. We are not and, because we are not, why do we continue to be subject to over-regulation, as if we were?

MA Guest, Armitage & Guest, Wakefield

Many years ago at a local meeting of either Relate or the former Solicitors Family Law Association (now Resolution), I proposed to an eminent judge that government health warnings appeared on divorce petitions.

The learned judge basically concurred. Many problems arise or are exacerbated by the inability of solicitors to advise both parties (at least initially). Surely, in these straitened times this inability should be addressed – nay rebutted – for the financial and emotional benefit of all parties, particularly the children.

Sandie GraffGraff & Redfern, Richmond, Surrey

I have reviewed with interest Lucinda Ferguson’s letter ‘“Final and binding” awards’.

Lucinda refers to my ‘Family law arbitration wins’ article as ‘misleading in one respect, namely that “awards” made under the Scheme are “final and binding”’. I never stated that an award in arbitration usurps or undermines the jurisdiction of the court.

Lucinda mentions article 13.3 of the IFLA Scheme Rules. It is important I mention when reading article 13.3(b) that ‘if the subject matter of the award requires the award to be embodied in a court order’ the court retains the jurisdiction to make such changes when making that order as it considers necessary.

At the initial pre-engagement meeting before the arbitrator, the arbitrator makes it quite clear that the parties are entering into a contract with the arbitrator and that the contractual relationship will result at the conclusion of the arbitration in a final and binding arbitration award (as stated in my article) between them. The parties are also informed that, should the award include terms that may require enforcement, the award will be referred to the court and the court will be asked to encapsulate the award into a court order enabling, where necessary, enforcement.

I think in the circumstances Lucinda may not have been fair with her comment in respect of this particular aspect of my article.

DR Sheridan, DR Sheridan LLP, Bushey, Herts

So the Ministry of Justice is having to dip into its – that is to say ‘our’ – pocket to bail out a cack-handed scheme for interpreter provision wished upon the criminal justice system supposedly to save money. Who would have thought it?

Well, anyone with a relevant working knowledge of this aspect of quality service provision actually. The MoJ was told and yet it still went ahead and did it. Never mind, it is not the ministry’s money and future at stake when it has gone wrong.

What chance does this give the MoJ of delivering on its equally ill-conceived plans for price-competitive tendering of criminal defence services? A fat chance or no chance at all.

Malcolm Fowler, Dennings, Tipton

It is heartening to learn that Mr Townsend, chief executive of the Solicitors Regulation Authority, urges the promotion of morality and ethics on the part of solicitors, intends to look at governance and conflicts of interest, and says that ownership and the independence of solicitors must not get muddled up.

If the SRA is serious about these matters, it must recognise the difference between corporations (with outside shareholders) and individuals (including partnerships and owner-managed companies). Individuals can make moral and ethical decisions, even if the bad apples in the barrel do not do so. The directors and senior employees of corporations are in breach of their company law duties if they make moral and ethical decisions, unless those decisions also happen to be in the best (that is, best financial) interests of the company and its shareholders.

The inherent conflict of interest between owners and professional ethics tilts the playing field in favour of corporations and their shareholders, and against individuals wishing to uphold moral and ethical standards. The playing field can be levelled very simply. The SRA should require every limited company, which carries on the practice of a solicitor in corporate form, to have as its sole object the observance of the core duties in the Solicitors Code of Conduct.

The significance of this is that, under section 172(2) of the Companies Act 2006, that object is substituted for the directors’ common law duty (codified in section 172(1)) to promote the interests of the company.

This requirement will remove the present conflict of interest in support of the approach being urged by Mr Townsend.

Roderick Ramage, Stafford

The Ministry of Justice wishes to remove the right of defendants to instruct the solicitor of their choice on the basis that ‘the removal of choice may reduce the extent to which firms offer services above (my emphasis) acceptable levels’. See paragraph 23 of the criminal litigation price competition impact assessment (link is at the bottom of the page).

The Solicitors Regulation Authority requires solicitors to: act with integrity; act in the best interest of each client; provide a proper standard of service to each client; and behave in a way that maintains the trust the public places in them and in the provision of legal services.

The MoJ is encouraging solicitors to ‘dumb down’ and thereby breach all of the above mandatory principles.

The Law Society should ban solicitors from undertaking work paid for by the MoJ until the ministry is able to demonstrate an ability to act with integrity in a way which maintains the trust the public places in it to ensure that publicly funded criminal defence legal services are provided to the best of the lawyer’s ability.

Molly Twomlow, Twomlows Solicitors, Monmouth

Dear Mr Grayling – please help! I run a medium-sized firm of motor mechanics, employing a team of 20. Most of us used to make a half-decent wage, in line with our experience, servicing and repairing cars for the general public.

We were not the cheapest but we took pride in our work and customers generally returned, mainly because we were pretty good at what we did, but also because most of them knew very little about motor vehicles and, since we have built a reputation over many years, they had confidence that we would look after them properly.

No one would argue that we did not provide excellent value for money. Sometimes jobs were complicated, and sometimes customers were awkward, but we had the balance of age and experience to deal with just about everything.

As you might recall, last year the government decided people pay too much to have their cars repaired and thought the money could be better spent elsewhere. They said we had to reduce our fees and they would help us do it. Basically, they said only 37 garages could operate in the whole of Greater Manchester, and told the public they could no longer decide where to go, but would be allocated a garage based on the first letter of their surname.

Every garage that wanted to remain open had to tell the government the minimum fee they could repair a car for, starting with a point that was 17.5 % less than the current rate. Needless to say, we were all desperate to remain in work. Everyone undercut each other and now we have to charge a fee which is 25% less than we were charging 10 years ago.

Worst of all, we all have to charge the same ridiculously low fee and are not allowed to seek out new business. I have had to let most of the staff go and I am back on the tools myself. My experienced staff bailed out months ago (I am having to pay minimum wage) and I am left with the apprentice and a couple of youngsters I drafted in. This is the only way I can keep the costs down and get the contract. They try hard and I cannot blame them, but I cannot check everything they do. The government says it’s OK though, because their paperwork will be checked by other firms – thank god they won’t be looking under the bonnet!

Amazingly, the public hasn’t a clue what’s happening. They are driving round in deathtraps, thinking they are getting a good deal because it is cheap. I wouldn’t mind, but every time someone from government has car trouble (and they frequently do) they wouldn’t dream of using one of we 37. There’s a different scheme for the privileged, whereby mechanics are paid properly, and have the time and resources to do a proper job.

To get to the point, I’ve heard a supermarket is to bid next year and we really can’t compete any more. I am looking for a career change and have heard plenty about these ‘fat-cat’ criminal lawyers who are raking it in. I wonder if the secretary of state for justice thinks such a change would be a wise move?

Tim McArdle, Olliers Solicitors, Manchester