Costly criticism

I have no wish to prolong or exacerbate the debate about costs negotiators, but I would like to reply to the letter from Colin Simpson (see [2002] Gazette, 7 March, 17).My article was not an attempt to 'justify' anything, but to introduce a measure of restraint into what is becoming an overheated topic.

Mr Simpson complained that I seemed to be criticising 'greedy solicitors' but an inquiry on his behalf at the Office for the Supervision of Solicitors or Ford Open Prison would have revealed that the profession contains more than its fair share of greedy practitioners.Mr Simpson also picks on two of the most common objections raised against costs negotiators, then immediately follows their bad example.Negotiators are frequently accused of making 'sweeping, general statements' - and what better example can there be of that than Mr Simpson's comment that 'negotiators are mostly unqualified'? That sweeping statement, of course, is the second common argument and is incorrect.

The majority of costs negotiators are either experienced costs draftsmen, members of the Association of Law Costs Draftsmen or law graduates.

That means they know more law than the average newly qualified solicitor and more about costs than the average law firm partner.

Bill Gibson, Association of Law Costs Draftsmen, London