Lawyers are usually careful with what they write, and a recent incident in the US shows us why. Connecticut lawyer Glenn Gazin was frustrated that the other side in a divorce dispute would not agree to any of his proposed choices to supervise his client's visits to the couple's children. According to the Connecticut Law Tribune, he suggested to his opposite number that even Saddam Hussein would be acceptable. Amusing perhaps, but Judge Kevin Tierney decided that he should write to the deposed Iraqi dictator to see if he had time to take on the role. The point was that you should not write something you do not mean. Mr Gazin wrote to Saddam: 'I regret that my client is unable to pay you more than a small fee for your services. I believe that you would find the job to be a welcome diversion from the more daunting tasks that must pre-occupy you at this time.' Saddam never got round to replying, although given this happened when he was still on the run, Mr Gazin may have had trouble addressing the envelope. And, of course, Mr Gazin then billed his client for the letter. It ended up at a disciplinary hearing, but Mr Gazin was reprimanded only for not responding to his client's complaint within 30 days.