Only the purest in heart or the most unutterably naive can think that the Government acted wholly coincidentally in publishing the salaries of so-called fat cat barristers and law firms just before the Law Society's conference on legal aid last week.It must be true that certain lawyers and firms, mainly those undertaking white collar crime defences, do make significant sums but is there any suggestion they do not do the work and put in the hours such defences entail? That should be the criterion.

It should also be remembered that the legal aid earnings of individuals and firms are taxed by experienced Taxing Masters and assistants.

If they considered the work unnecessary then they would disallow it.

The fault does not lie with the practitioner but with their Government employed paymasters.One thing which went unremarked was how short was each list; not many more than a dozen names in each.

On the other hand there must be five thousand barristers undertaking legal aid work and around 10,000 solicitors' offices who do not feature on the list.

On page 673 Julian Gibbons, a provincial solicitor, sets out a cri de coeur from the profession.

We suspect that the overall earnings of the profession are very much more in line with those of Mr Gibbons than the names published by the Government.Meanwhile on the domestic front:Q: When is a privileged conversation not a privileged conversation?A: When it is overheard.We are back with the Arnold Rosen saga.

Those with short attention spans may need to be reminded he was overheard by a policeman describing the clerk of the court as a "silly cow" in her absence.Mr Rosen has maintained that his conversation was privileged; the Committee of the Office for the Supervision of Solicitors has been advised by the caseworker that because the words were overheard by a police officer sitting in the public gallery they were not.The Office also sets out the finding to be promulgated in specific terms.In relation to the complaint that Mr Rosen brought the profession into disrepute in that he referred to Mrs Cameron as a "silly cow" the Committee FOUND that this complaint has been substantiated.

The REASONS were that although the Committee noted Mr Rosen had never confirmed to the OSS that he has used those words the Committee also noted that he has never denied the same.

Having considered all of the correspondence, including press articles, the Committee FOUND on the balance of probabilities that the statement made by PC Gillett was an accurate summary of Mr Rosen's remarks.

The committee felt that using such a phrase did amount to a breach of Rule 1 as it was conduct which tended to bring the profession into disrepute.

The Committee therefore RESOLVED to disapprove of Mr Rosen's conduct in having brought the profession into disrepute by referring to Mrs Cameron as "a silly cow".Of course, although the Committee can disregard the recommendation it is interesting to see how matters are put to them.

Those with nasty minds might think it to be little more than rubber stamp justice, a thought we are convinced Mr Ross would wish to have dispelled.There is no doubt that Mr Rosen has long been considered a pain in the neck by the Office for Supervision and its predecessor -- and indeed others.

But there is a serious question of whether he is actually being treated even-handedly.

It is not so many years ago that he was rightly aggrieved when a former Director of the SCB referred in a letter to the Law Society President to Mr Rosen's "essential Jewishness".In another letter the same person referred to words to the effect that Blacks and Jews were always whining that they couldn't get a fair hearing.

Despite his complaints, the matter was suitably hushed up.

The report by Queen's Counsel, paid for by Law Society members has never been published nor shown to Mr Rosen.The last time the Law Society rebuked Mr Rosen was in 1990 for a non-offence which resulted in the rebuke being rescinded in Council; again in camera the proceedings cost some £200,000 in all.Let us hope this will not be another expensive fiasco.

In the meantime perhaps Mr Ross can explain why he has not replied to the Secretary of the Trafford Law Society (see NLJ, letters, May 1) -- a failure which in others would surely result in being reported.

Perhaps his Office can also answer the question of why it took so long for the non-compliance of Michael Hugh Greet (NLJ April 3) to be uncovered.

It is not an answer to say other agencies are involved.

It may or may not be the case that the police have been called in but that has nothing at all to do the apparent defaults of the OSS and its predecessor.Mr Ross is, however, to be congratulated on his efforts to stem the tide of complaints.

"It is amazing that at present nearly fifty per cent of complaints go straight to the OSS without any attempt at reconciliation through in-house procedures.

From May 1 clients will have to have tried reconciliation.

This is a bold and sensible step.

It is to be hoped that if the client has proved obdurate in the procedure, the OSS will simply kick the complaint into touch.