I am sorry that David Wurtzel is troubled by my comments about the possible challenges to the money laundering legislation (see [2004] Gazette, 9 September, 15). Mr Wurtzel feels that it is cruel to promise the profession the hope of a legal remedy without spelling out how this can be achieved. I regret that I do not agree with him. I start from the premise that the government is entitled to be concerned about money laundering. The legal profession has a role to do what it can to prevent being used to facilitate laundering the proceeds of crime.


But we are entitled to question the proportionality of the government's response. We do that not only by lobbying when legislation is going through Parliament, but by drawing government's - and opposition politicians' - attention to the dispropor-tionate impact which the legislation has had in practice.



We may also find the need as a Law Society to intervene from time to time in order to establish the parameters of a solicitor's responsibility. The case of P v P [2003] EWHC Fam 2260 is a classic example of that.



How can we ignore the growing concern from the profession about the impact of the regulations? A failure on the part of the Law Society to consider any appropriate challenge to the proportion-ality of the regulations - whether through court challenge or by lobbying for change to the legislation - would in my view be unforgivable. I assert that on behalf of the profession and more importantly the general public whom we serve. While I am President, I will continue to press home that message.



Edward Nally, President of the Law Society