Fighting back

In the wake of criticisms of legal aid lawyers by the Consumers' Association, Robert Sayer asks whether solicitors, the association or the legal press are at fault

Last week's Consumers' Association criticism of solicitors, as reported in the media, was hard hitting.

'Legally aided clients say they are poorly served by solicitors who show little interest in their cases,' read one extract.

'Many respondents had concerns about solicitors' commitment' and 'generally, respondents seem to have been poorly served by solicitors,' were two other highlights.

I do not believe those findings are a true representation of the commitment of legal aid lawyers.

Unfortunately, the report does not give details about how the sample of 80 people was chosen.

Were they scientifically selected and representative, or a self-selecting sample consisting of people who responded to an advertisement? How many said good things?Most legal aid lawyers are highly qualified, dedicated people working in difficult circumstances who are underpaid, overworked and unappreciated.

Elsewhere, they would be praised as angels doing their best while under-resourced by government.

If low morale is occasionally reflected in the way a minority relate to their clients, who can be surprised? It is time they received praise instead of knocks.

But were the association's findings as critical as press reports implied? The original report is 10 pages long.

Most of it is sensible and concentrates on the risk of the new Community Legal Service failing if it is not adequately resourced.

The first six pages could have been taken straight from the Law Society's Access to Justice campaign, which focused on the need for proper funding and the potential risk to vulnerable groups.

Not until page seven is there a single sentence swiping at solicitors and financial advisers - with no supporting facts or data.

The summary contains 18 bullet points.

Only one directly criticises solicitors - again, without providing facts or data.

So why did all the sensible findings, things we agree with, fail to make the news and the anti-solicitor part get the headlines? Sometimes, I think we are too quick to shoot ourselves in the foot.

Why is that? I believe it reflects a lack of self-confidence.

Solicitors work hard; we do our best and most of our clients are happy with what we do, but we have been knocked about - by the government, the press and, sadly, by our own Law Society - for so long that who could blame us for starting to believe the negative propaganda we suffer every day?Unfortunately, the people who should be standing up for us, challenging the likes of the Consumers' Association to justify its allegations and countering with all the evidence we have about the great job most legal aid lawyers do, do not stand up for us.

They seem to have been brainwashed into supineness.The response - or lack of it - to the CA's report is symptomatic of a deeper problem: a lack of fire, of spirit, call it courage, which is causing a dangerous rift between the Society and its members.

The latest Law Society research (April 2000) into the attitude of the profession to the Law Society confirms it.

The mood of the responses could be summarised by comments such as: 'Chancery Lane pays little attention to its members' views and their problems; there is too much regulation; the Society is old fashioned and poor at representing our interests.' No wonder the recent Reform 2000 group survey shows 63% of respondents say the Society concentrates too much on regulation and 59% want the regulatory and representative function split, with 65% saying the Society should retain representation.

Contrast that with the Council's proposals outlined in last week's Gazette: 'reform could see Chancery Lane concentrating on regulation and pulling back from its representative role'; 'an end to Law Society funding for special interest groups'; 'client care to be monitored and enforced by the Law Society...firms might be inspected every two years...'I do not want the Law Society to wither and die.

It is the only body that can look after its members' interests.

But unless it begins to listen to its members and do what they want, it has no future and does not deserve one.

Robert Sayer is President of the Law Society