So the Law Society President thinks that he can ignore 15,000 votes of the membership who voted for the re-imposition of the ban on referral fees 'in the public interest' (see [2004] Gazette, 7 October, 1). Yet the removal of the ban is clearly against the public interest.


I have corresponded this week with a law firm offering me immediate cash and a share of the profit costs if I will refer clinical negligence work. I believe that I should refer on the basis of the quality of the solicitor who will do the work, not on the basis of the 'bung' that I receive (whether I declare the bung to my client or not).



Personal injury and clinical negligence cases have a fixed (and diminishing) profit margin. Where solicitors compete for the referrals, the amount of that margin that they must 'bung' for the work will eat into profit, and the amount of time and care that solicitors can give to their clients. Care for the client in order to achieve the right result is absolutely essential in this area of litigation. If the work no longer pays then it won't be done properly or at all. While this may suit insurers, it isn't in the interest of the wider public.



The president says that a total ban can't be enforced. My view is that if the Law Society cannot enforce a ban, it won't be bothered to enforce the safeguards on which the president relies. Solicitors are meant to protect the public, not participate in their fleecing dressed up as 'competition'. If some among our number want to act against the interests of the public, then the Law Society is paid to deal with them; not change the rules so that it need not bother.



Andrew Cohen, Woking, Surrey