While I accept the underlying premise of Christopher Digby-Bell’s argument regarding hourly charging, I fear he has missed one important point.

I specialise in commercial property transactions, but nearer the bottom end of the value scale than the top. While I am confident in my ability, and the speed with which I can work, the same cannot be said for all the solicitors with whom I have to deal.

In consequence, any predictions I make as to the amount of work involved must be subject to the caveat that I cannot vouch for my opposite number. In the past year, I have had a number of transactions that should have been relatively straightforward, but in respect of which the recorded time has been many times what I predicted.

The upshot of being involved in such a transaction is that either I have to write off all of the time over and above my predicted cost, or the client has to pay substantially more than he anticipated.

The usual solution is a compromise, whereby both myself and the client are out of pocket.

I believe I know what I am doing, but feel that I should have the capacity to charge according to the work I must undertake on behalf of my client.

There is a solution. Perhaps, as with other areas of practice, we should only be allowed to undertake work that we can demonstrate we are competent to undertake.

That would, at least, limit the number of nightmares the competent commercial property lawyer presently has to endure.

Neil Wright, London, N6