For those of us who have tried to carve out a living by practising personal injury (PI) law, the powers that be have not exactly made life easy.

Withdrawal of legal aid for non-clinical negligence PI was the start.

Since then, I need not go in to the no-win-no-fee culture that has been bred.

Suffice it to say that the legal profession has suffered another knock to its reputation.

What is increasingly frustrating is the number of roles played by insurance companies.

When instructed by clients, we have to beg their motor insurers to allow our clients to have the benefit of the funding they have paid for even though they have opted to instruct us and not the insurer's panel solicitor.

If our client does not have a before- the-event insurance policy, we have to try to find an insurance company that will provide after-the-event insurance at a reasonable premium.

We then face the wrath of third-party insurers in respect of how our client intends to fund the case.

If it is with an ATE policy, the insurers often say the premium and/or success fee are unreasonable.

Imagine my horror when I read that the Master of the Rolls has suggested that smaller PI cases be dealt with by insurance companies (see [2004] Gazette, 29 April, 1).

I wonder whether I am old fashioned for believing that there is more to a PI claim than something that could be just dealt with by adjudication.

Have people forgotten that claims are founded on negligence? How many fee-earners or insurance company claims handlers are familiar with terms such as 'reasonable foreseeability', 'proximity' 'standard of care' or even 'duty of care'?

Claire Wilson, C Wilson Solicitors, Chorley, Lancashire