Serious criticism rarely results from the actions of a man where it is perceived he is doing something public spirited and generous. I must therefore express strong criticisms and also a warning in respect of the proposals that have been agreed by certain solicitors and which have been highlighted in your article 'Damages boost for miners' (see [2004] Gazette, 23 September, 3).


It appears that in order to provide former miners with a minimum compensation, the solicitors have agreed a formula whereby they would forfeit a proportion of their own fees in order to bring this about. What can they be thinking about? Have they not considered the dangerous precedent they may be setting for the future?


The article goes on to highlight even more muddled thinking. If, for a variety of reasons, some former miners will receive no compensation and others will receive small compensation, then their legal representatives will have done their best within the framework of their opportunities. It is no part of their duty to 'chip in' to make a minimum payment available.


It gets worse. It seems that the national co-ordinator for British Coal litigation believes that it is 'no good' for solicitors to have to tell clients the bad news concerning the compensation available. Most of us spend our professional lives distributing the good news and the bad news with equal candour and tact. Why is this so different? It appears that the Department of Trade and Industry has 'canvassed the profession' about the proposal and received no objection. Well, it didn't canvass me and I trust that this counterblast may well represent the views of the great uncanvassed.



Reginald G Le Pla, Simpson Duxbury, Bradford