I wonder if like me others observed a kind of ironic tension between your two recent lead stories (see [2006] Gazette, 12 January, 1).


The second story concerned interference by the Iraqi government with bar leadership, emphasising the need for a well-established legal profession in an incipient democracy.


By contrast, the lead story furthered information about alternative business structures, which will have a substantial and some might even suspect devastating eventual effect on the nature and thereby independence of the legal professions in this country.


When I qualified, I was given [former Law Society secretary] Sir Thomas Lund's practice book. This gave me the clear impression that detailed and important rules were well established for a profession, not as the media and public so wrongly suspect to govern self-interest, but to provide probity, integrity and appropriate methodology for the undertaking of work.


Since then, the rules have become ever more detailed and demanding and Lexcel has been established as a widely sought after and appropriate professional standard.


Alternative business structures may sound wonderful, but am I alone in suspecting that there may be a fudge over professional issues here?


Lawyers work best with lawyers. There is a real concern that the whole nature and cohesion of the profession will be severely damaged.


Where will there then be an independent legal profession fit to fight the small person's corner? I am singularly unconvinced these changes will ultimately benefit the public.


They sound close to a charlatans' charter and will certainly create an unlevel playing field.


Roger Ennals, Sparling Benham & Brough, Colchester