Why it is often right to write
The Gazette recently published and expressed agreement with comments from the director of public prosecutions, Stephen Parkinson, regarding the growing trend of communicating via email rather than phone.
Mr Parkinson correctly points out that there is a generational divide on this, but he is forcing his generation’s views seemingly without considering the reasons behind the alternative perspective.
First, there is the obvious point that written communication leaves an audit trail and is more reliable than memory. We live in a litigious society, complaints to the Legal Ombudsman are at an all-time high, and it often feels like the Solicitors Regulation Authority is circling overhead. Written communication is an invaluable shield.
As a personal example, I am aware of my own limitations – I dislike conflict and am hard-wired to avoid it. When in a conflict situation with another firm’s solicitor, I know that to phone them will place my brain in survival mode. I am more likely to back down on a point that could be important. By emailing rather than phoning, I am acting in the best interests of my client.
What Mr Parkinson fails to realise is that the younger generation has grown up in a world where mobile phones mean people are contactable 24/7 and they have adapted accordingly. In many circles, to phone somebody is considered rude; you are placing an immediate demand on their time. How often does it have to be said that being available and contactable 24/7 is contributing to the mental health epidemic? Written communication in whatever form allows the recipient to respond in their own time and hopefully when they have the opportunity of a clear, anxiety-free mind.
I don’t dispute that there are times when a phone call does resolve things faster and encourages open communication, and I regularly use it. But it is not without its drawbacks. We each need to play to our own strengths.
If the Law Society is to work in a way which encourages equality, diversity and inclusion, it must become alert and receptive to the challenges, viewpoints and cultural shifts of the people it represents. Criticising an entire generation of lawyers (and by implication many lawyers with anxiety or who are neurodivergent) for their preference for written communication is not the way to do that.
Name and address supplied
BBC is scaremongering on no win, no fee
On 13 January, the BBC released a podcast titled ‘No Win No Fee… No thanks?’. This mainly discussed cavity wall claims, despite being trailed as focusing on the increase in housing disrepair (HDR) claims.
This follows on from the Ministry of Justice consultation into HDR claims, which includes the potential introduction of a fixed-costs regime and the banning of referral fees.
This is an important debate. Unscrupulous solicitors and claims management companies (CMCs) must be regulated. However, the podcast’s title could be described as fearmongering – more of a command than a question.
It focused on cavity wall cases where SSB Law left clients liable for costs after going into liquidation. As for HDR claims, the podcast spent several minutes discussing illegal canvassing, including door-knocking by CMCs, and solicitors failing to explain the terms of the claims.
In the podcast, the SRA said: ‘We regulate more than 9,000 law firms and have made significant changes to the way we work. We are continuing to work with the SSB victims’ group and others, to help them understand and explore all their possible options for redress.’
Firms found guilty of misconduct should of course be scrutinised, but what about the firms representing tenants living with disrepair in genuine need?
In HDR matters, FOIA data shows that legal aid decreased by 70% from 2013/14 to 2023/24. Moreover, the government acknowledges in its consultation the good work that CMCs do by connecting tenants to legal remedies. There is no doubt that law firms profit from HDR matters – but in the absence of legal aid, what is the alternative?
The podcast interviewed a representative of pressure group Fair Civil Justice. She described no win, no fee claims as ‘very risky’, without seeming to understand insurance models that protect tenants from costs. She argued for the adoption of alternative dispute resolution (ADR), citing the Housing Ombudsman. But does the ombudsman have the capacity to represent tenants in need, especially as they will not act for private tenants until at least 2028? In any case, most housing disrepair claims settle out of court and are therefore resolved via a form of ADR.
The podcast was guilty of scaremongering. While legal aid remains unavailable to many, surely tenants living in disrepair will continue to require legal assistance from private law firms for the foreseeable future.
My firm approached the BBC for its observations. It has yet to respond.
Jacob Poole
Housing operations coordinator, Pabla+Pabla Solicitors, West Didsbury, Manchester
Mind the regulation gap
Many of the public reasonably believe that if a solicitor behaves unfairly, the regulator will intervene to protect them. My experience suggests this belief deserves closer scrutiny.
After raising concerns with the Solicitors Regulation Authority about conduct that occurred during court proceedings – including late service of costs material, attempts to advance arguments outside the scope of the hearing, and the resulting disadvantage and distress caused to me as a litigant in person – I was informed that no investigation would be opened. The reason given was not that harm had not occurred, but that such matters were considered procedural and therefore within the court’s jurisdiction rather than the regulator’s.
This leaves an uncomfortable gap. Courts may decline to address sharp practice in the moment, while the regulator later defers responsibility back to the court. The individual affected is left without remedy, oversight or meaningful protection.
The SRA regulates professional standards rather than resolving disputes or correcting unfairness. That distinction is important – but it is not well understood by the public. Many people only discover it after investing time, emotional energy and hope in a complaints process that offers no resolution.
Greater transparency is needed about what regulatory complaints can and cannot achieve, particularly for LiPs facing well-resourced legal teams. Public confidence is not strengthened by silence or misplaced expectations. It is strengthened by honesty.
Name and address supplied
No comments yet