Paul Asplin, chief executive of DAS, extols the virtues of legal expenses insurance in his letter of 22 October. The impression is conveyed of a super-efficient system delivering cost-effective justice with the interests of the client being paramount and that to sacrifice freedom of choice is a price worth paying for this.

He does not comment on the fact that the low premium cost might be illusory in the case of some providers, who seek substantial referral fees from their panel solicitors, thus driving up the cost of the service. Are these referral fees always disclosed?

Do all providers offer a true indemnity or are some panel solicitors faced with an unwritten understanding that they will never seek payment under the policy because that is part of the commercial bargain?

Are policyholders told that, or are they under the impression that their solicitors will be paid, whatever the outcome or difficulty of the case? Do they think that disbursements are funded? Are difficult cases always run or is it easier to ‘pull the plug’ on the tricky ones because another one will come along to replace it?

Finally, how many purchasers of insurance are under the impression that the legal expense service is provided directly by the company they have chosen to insure them, rather than to an outsourcing operation as part of a commercial arrangement, as it is in some cases? Is this transparent at the point of sale?

True legal expense insurance would have realistic premiums and allow freedom of choice, provided that the solicitor can fulfil quality criteria. Is the real question not simply whether that would put too much of a squeeze on the substantial profits of insurance providers?

Neil Sugarman, Managing partner, GLP Solicitors, Bury