On 10 February 2010 several large legal aid fims met Jack Straw and discussed the future. The MoJ has disclosed the names of the firms which attended but has indicated that the agenda and minutes are secret.

I wonder if Tony Edwards' recent comment in the Gazette about duty solicitors was indicative of what was discussed? Perhaps he could tell us what the agenda consisted of and what was discussed?

Why should large firms have an unfair advantage and be rewarded with a market share the market itself (ie the clients) has decided not to award them? Why is big better?

There is no such thing as ‘economies of scale’. It is a phrase that has been given credence well beyond any factual basis. Bigger firms have no more right to survive and no more right to a disproportionate share of the market than any other firm.

The only economic truth worthy of adherence is that clients decide to whom they wish to turn and for anyone to interfere with that requires careful, open, honest scrutiny and discussion.

It is quite clear to me that, in the recent family law legal aid tender process, there were firms which had an insight into what it was that the LSC would be looking for – to the detriment of smaller firms. They had an unfair advantage. Quite frankly, it does not worry me that my firm no longer has a legal aid family contract, as I believe that scope of legal aid will be cut so much that the contract will not be worth having. However, what I do find disgraceful is how some firms have bid speculatively in areas where they did not already have a presence and obliterated smaller, local firms, for no better reason than they were greedy and bigger.

Is the same going to happen in criminal law?

Michael Robinson, Emmersons Solicitors, Sunderland