In her recent column, Law Society President Fiona Woolf referred to the 'brand of solicitor' (see (2006) Gazette, 21 September, 19), which I think neatly summarises what we in the solicitors' profession will have to focus upon if we are to compete with new entrants to the legal marketplace following the Clementi review. Ms Woolf also expressed her desire to 'target anachronistic regulatory issues and rules that do not add value'.

Accordingly, she may wish to consider the current rule prohibiting the use of the Law Society's coat of arms in firms' advertising. If you have ever received a letter from a member of the Royal Institution of Chartered Surveyors, you will instantly recognise it as such, since it bears a rather striking heraldic crest. No matter what the name of the surveyor or his firm, you know you are dealing with a member of a professional organisation. Likewise, doctors have their unique emblem.


I would find it helpful to be able to employ the insignia of my own governing body, the Law Society. As it is, we have no more right to use the Law Society's crest than any number of so-called lawyers out there who ply their trade without qualification or regulation.


How is the public to differentiate between us? Do they all know that a 'lawyer' isn't necessarily the same a solicitor? Solicitors have the right (actually the obligation) to use the term 'regulated by the Law Society', but take a look at the font size that most firms use for this - it is hardly a marketing asset.


The Law Society's present stance is that use of its coat of arms by a solicitor amounts to trademark infringement. Thanks very much, guys. Is this not an 'anachronistic rule that fails to add value'? How are we going to establish a brand presence with this sort of mentality?


Dermot Burke, Bells, Farnham, Surrey