Letters to the editor

I was surprised and disappointed at the headline and tone of the front page news item ‘Most people “could not tell a good lawyer from a bad one”’ (see [2010] Gazette, 4 March, 1).

Maybe that is because, according to the research, almost no bad lawyers exist. Key findings in relation to clients’ attitudes were:

• 92% of those questioned felt that the lawyer acted in their best interest;
• 92% were satisfied with the outcome;
• 91% received a good service (84% agreeing with that statement ‘a lot’);
• 94% were able to deal with the lawyer when they needed to;
• 96% said that the lawyer explained things in a way that they could understand;
• 95% said that the lawyer acted in a professional manner;
• 95% said that the lawyer knew what was going on;
• 94% said that the lawyer was approachable; and
• 86% would recommend their lawyer.

These are spectacularly good results, showing that solicitors are approachable, professional, knowledgeable, provide a good service and communicate in a way that clients understand.

They also show, if we did not know it already, that the Legal Services Act with its accompanying alternative business structures is a complete waste of time and risks leading to the loss of what the public clearly regards as a profession providing an outstanding service.

The report itself implies that it did not expect these findings. Its aim was to ‘provide robust, nationally representative data about consumers’ experiences of using legal services before the full implementation of the 2007 Legal Services Act’.

It concluded that ‘new entrants to the market could find it challenging to establish a foothold’.

There is no room for complacency in the legal profession. No one could ever accuse me of thinking that, but surely the Gazette, of all publications, should be shouting these findings from the rooftops.

Any other trade or profession would kill for satisfaction ratings like these. You have to be Mahatma Gandhi or Nelson Mandela to score higher, but of course they were both lawyers as well.

Kerry Underwood, Chairman, Law Abroad plc; senior partner, Underwoods, Hemel Hempstead

I am intrigued as to how standards of advocacy are to be assessed. Who are the people making the assessments? Do they have checklists which they tick off when the right questions are asked? What experience have they got of the courts in question?

It seems incongruous to criticise advocates who might have special knowledge of a bench as to their likes and dislikes of matters in court and thus obtain the best result for their clients.

Often that knowledge can carry far more weight than merely making sure that all the points in a submission or mitigation or questioning a witness are registered. The mention of ‘failure rates’ in cross-examination and examination in chief mean absolutely nothing to me. Perhaps someone could enlighten me.

I fear the worst with the mention of multiple-choice assessments. In my respectful submission – and I wonder how many of us have used that phrase – only those with experience in court work could possibly make proper judgements about this subject.

Tim Hawkins, Doncaster

I write in response to the letter headed ‘Tools of the trade’ from 18 February. I disagree entirely with the sweeping assumption that state-educated students do not gain the skills to obtain a professional qualification.

The writer states that ‘students not attending private school are far less likely to have been provided with the skills and tools necessary to obtain a professional qualification’. I am wondering on what evidence this assertion is based.

I attended a state comprehensive school, formerly a secondary modern. My teachers did a tremendous job and I felt I had a well-rounded education which gave me an excellent basis for my current career as a solicitor. A number of my contemporaries also went onto professional careers – midwives, teachers, officers in the armed forces and so on. This was in large part down to skills gained at our lowly state school, together with determination to succeed because of, not despite of, our ‘less fortunate’ backgrounds.

I also owe a huge thank you to my mother for the effort she put into broadening my education outside school and giving me the confidence to believe in myself. Therefore, I don’t think it is a lack of skills, but rather a lack of opportunity, that bars entry to the profession.

Kirsty Pennington, Lucas & Wyllys, Great Yarmouth

I would like to clarify some important points in relation to last week’s story about immigration lawyers being unhappy over the new accreditation process (see [2010] Gazette, 25 February, 4).

The Law Society has adopted a policy in relation to all the accreditation schemes it runs to ensure that they are proportionate and fair for practitioners, while promoting best practice and high standards in the consumer and public interest. Immigration panel membership is mandatory for publicly funded immigration and asylum work, and gives practitioners a means of demonstrating that they are specialists and experts.

Immigration practitioners were aware from the beginning that they would need to be reaccredited at appropriate intervals, both as a matter of good practice and to enable all existing scheme members to be able to fulfil the Legal Services Commission criteria for this type of publicly funded work.

For those members whose accreditation expired on 31 December 2009, the LSC 2010 contract round required them to be reaccredited by 31 July to take up the contracts commencing 1 October 2010.

The Law Society was successful in securing LSC agreement to extend the original deadline of 31 July 2010 to March 2011, so that firms can plan and phase in their assessments, especially where they have multiple candidates.

Firms awarded a contract can apply for the 50% subsidy towards the cost of the assessment.

The LSC called for a two-stage process for reaccreditation, involving a three-hour exam and the submission of a portfolio of cases, which required evidence across a number of areas within this field. The Law Society took the view that this was disproportionate and costly to administer and assess.

The Society’s Immigration Technical Board, consisting of leading practitioners and representatives of the Immigration Law Practitioners Association, was set up to deal objectively with such issues and it was they, and they alone, who chose how to deal with the 2010 reassessment.

They took into account the requirements of the LSC and the need to reflect the pressures on immigration practitioners. They considered all the options and decided that a two-hour exam was the least burdensome for practitioners to enable them to meet the LSC mandatory requirement and to satisfy the public interest.

Desmond HudsonChief executive, Law Society

Social mobility for legal aid lawyers has relied on the availability of sponsored legal aid training contracts in recent years.

Members of Young Legal Aid Lawyers (YLAL) were puzzled that the Ministry of Justice spokesperson responding to our social mobility report (see [2010] Gazette, 25 February, 2) refers to the scheme, but fails to mention that the Legal Services Commission did not provide any sponsored training contracts last year and is unable to say with any certainty when the scheme will resume.

Whatever plans the government and the LSC have for the delivery of legal aid, the lack of training opportunities and incentives for young lawyers to commit to legal aid need to be addressed.

The students who want to specialise in legal aid, where they could make a real difference with their work, will have to channel their talent into other areas of law.

The training contracts grants scheme helped firms to accommodate future legal aid solicitors and support them through their training. The impact on social mobility within the legal aid sector is significant, as this was the one proactive step that had been taken by the government to open up legal aid to those from less well-off backgrounds.

The scheme must be resumed and expanded to compensate for the absence of sponsored training contracts last year – just as the legal aid sector was struggling to cope with the double impact of the recession and sweeping changes to legal aid. Failure to do so will be disastrous for social mobility.

Aleksandra Zernova, London NW1

The Institute of Legal Executives is running a consultation exercise upon its application to become an approved regulator for Crown Prosecution Service associate prosecutors to undertake advocacy and litigation. So far, so good.

The proposal is that unqualified CPS associate prosecutors assume the same powers as solicitor and barrister Crown prosecutors to conduct cases outside court; and also to conduct all trials in the magistrates’ court, except either-way matters where jurisdiction is shared with the Crown court.

There is no need to be an existing CPS employee. The academic qualification to become an associate prosecutor is given as: nil required. A professional legal qualification is not necessary either.

This proposal raises concerns over the quality of justice and the potential for miscarriage of justice. With HMCS associate note-takers replacing some qualified legal advisers, we are seeing the gradual de-lawyering of the magistrates’ court.

The consultation can be found on the ILEX website and closes on 6 April.

Tim O’Sullivan, Law Society criminal law committee, Bournemouth

I read with little surprise at the Law Society being voted strongest Business Superbrand in its sector, or at its overall 75th placing. The Law Society is an internationally recognised brand with an enviable heritage.

I have been left in doubt of this, as my firm continues to ride a promotion wave following our Excellence Award shortlisting in 2008 and Excellence Award Win in 2009. In the eyes of consumers, this credit from the Law Society is as good as a personal recommendation from the president.

The Law Society must now act on this. The practice management standard, Lexcel, needs a rebrand. Clients and stakeholders alike do not know what Lexcel is, or what it represents. If it were the ‘Law Society Quality mark’ or of a similar vein, consumers would be left in no doubt as to what it represents, and it would give Lexcel-accredited firms the true promotional advantage that they deserve.

Rick Barrow, Marketing manager, Jackson Barrett & Gass, Wilmslow

As a chartered building surveyor of 40 years’ standing, my specialisms have been in the preparation of full building surveys (previously known as structural surveys) and what are known as ‘engineers reports’. The latter are usually consequent upon the requirements of a mortgage valuer, but increasingly I finding that it is clients who have had a full building survey undertaken that also require my services in this context.

The Royal Institution of Chartered Surveyors definition of a full building survey is reasonably unambiguous and ‘sold’ to the public with the assurance that the surveyor who undertakes the report will cover all structural elements and conclude upon them. In fact, an increasing number of so called full building surveys, for which the client will have paid a substantial fee, seem to include a recommendation for the customer to obtain a whole raft of so called specialist reports to cover areas where the building surveyor ‘doesn't feel confident’ to cover himself.

During the last few years, I have seen clients recommended to obtain structural engineers reports in matters of wall cracks (some of them as simple as shrinkage at plasterboard sheet joints), employ trade specialists to cover anything from roof to wood beetle, and global warming specialists to cover the depth of insulation in the roof void!

I have even been asked to provide a ‘specialist report’ on the matter of whether brickwork pointing was satisfactory. On another occasion I had to write a report as to whether there might be ‘rot in windows’, and on another occasion the surveyor recommended a specialist report to cover ‘the reasons behind misting up in double glazing units’.

Accepting instructions to undertake a full building survey and then ducking major issues that under the RICS description should otherwise have been covered seems to me to be an infringement of trades description. I suspect one cause is that the public, after years of the house buyer’s report, wants something better. Consequently, there may be a propensity for surveyors who would not normally have touched a full building survey to accept instructions in the knowledge that they can defer large parts of what they should have covered to third-party specialists

This is bringing the profession into disrepute and should be stopped. A full building survey is just that – a thorough investigation of the building backed by sufficient knowledge to enable the client to decide whether or not to proceed with a purchase. I accept that there are certain aspects of a structure that will require specialist reports such as drains, electrics or heating performance, but in terms of structure it really should be down to the surveyor.

RD Wolstenholme, Wolstenholme Chartered Building Surveyors, Halifax

<!--break-->
Credit where it is due
I read Pat McFadden's article ‘Breaking the class ceiling’ (see [2010] Gazette, 11 February, 10) with interest and some frustration.

I welcome government action to open access to all professions to those from all backgrounds. I welcome its intention to work
with the professions and those schemes and initiatives which are already in place. I welcome the relaunch of the Gateways to the Professions Collaborative Forum.

However, yet again government – this time through the minister for business, innovation and skills – has failed to realise that there already exists within the legal profession considerable opportunity for social mobility.

The Institute of Legal Executives qualification of legal executive lawyer, and the close working between ILEX, the Law Society and the Solicitors Regulation Authority to maintain a non-graduate route to qualification as a solicitor, seem to have passed the minister by.

I have no doubt we can all do better. But it would be encouraging if the good practice long embraced by ILEX and the Law Society occasionally got the recognition it deserves.

Judith Gordon-Nichols, President, Institute of Legal Executives

Opportunity knocks at Taylor Wessing
Pat McFadden, minister for business, innovation and skills, writes of the excellent projects being initiated by foundations and the government to provide more exposure for young people from non-traditional backgrounds to the legal profession.

But he fails to recognise that, in the testing economic climate, with law firms increasingly pressured to make cuts to their corporate social responsibility budgets, it is ever more difficult for firms to invest in outreach and to ensure that they attract the brightest and most talented young people, whatever their backgrounds.

Despite these challenges, law firms are finding innovative ways to promote social mobility in sustainable and cost-effective ways.

Future First, a social enterprise focused on increasing social mobility in the UK, has recently partnered with leading law firm Taylor Wessing to provide opportunities for young people studying at state schools. From volunteer placements in
schools for Taylor Wessing staff, to opportunities for pupils to come in and shadow Taylor Wessing employees for a day, this partnership between the firm and Future First is an example of how organisations can come together creatively for their mutual benefit.

Opportunities are available for law firms to keep ensuring that they recruit the best and brightest from diverse backgrounds despite the recession. Firms and partners just need to ensure that these opportunities are grasped.

Jess Cordingly, Managing director, Future First

Pride and prejudice
I would wager that the state-educated junior lawyers whose social skills your anonymous writer claims to be ‘less developed’ (see [2010] Gazette, 18 February, 11), are actually simply uninterested in the art of sycophancy, and are unwilling and unable to tolerate his own peculiar brand of misinformed prejudice.

Laura Barton, Solicitor, Probert & Gray Solicitors, Neath

Learning curve
In seeking the aid of solicitors in eliminating social inequalities in the profession (see [2010] Gazette, 18 February, 11) Pat McFadden defies parody. This government has systematically wrecked state education, denying children from that sector the opportunity to compete academically with those from independent schools. It now looks to the profession to help sort out the resulting mess.

Solicitors do not recruit by class but by achievement. They expect to be able to assess an applicant’s abilities by reference to the qualifications contained in the curriculum vitae – not by having to undertake some kind of independent social audit of each candidate (which would in itself be potentially discriminatory). If the profession is less socially mobile than it used to be, the government should look to its education policy. Building grammar schools would be a good start.

Dr Julian Critchlow , Fenwick Elliott London

Intelligence gap

A few months ago you published a letter in which I suggested that those who chose to study law should be the ones to pay for it. I added that, even at its present cost, the legal practice course may be underpriced.

It is the reality for many graduates of the LPC and indeed the bar vocational course that their legal careers end there and then because of the lack of training places.

To put it bluntly, the state education system of this country does not prepare pupils for the professions but rather focuses on mindlessly leading children to believe that they can succeed at anything they want to do, regardless of their innate ability (or more often inability).

It is time to stop the social engineering, bring an end to wailings of the ever bleating 'disadvantaged' factions of society and accept that it does take intelligence, ability and motivation to be a successful solicitor, and that this has a cost which should be borne by the individual aspiring to join the profession. ‘Equality’, whatever it is, cannot be achieved because we all have different aptitudes and abilities which only the intelligent can exploit to achieve.

All this nonsense can end at once - no training contract, no LPC.

Eugene MacLaughlin, Scully and Sowerbutts, London