LETTERS TO THE EDITOR

IN PRAISE OF EU WORK

EU law may not have 'caught on' with smaller firms (see [2002] Gazette, 4 July, 18) but not, as your correspondent suggests (see [2002] Gazette, 11 July, 18) because it is unprofitable.

Commercial EU law, particularly the competition, Internet and commercial agency law in which I specialise as a sole practitioner, are surely the profitable areas to which smaller firms might deliberately direct their efforts.

As I go around the country giving continued professional development courses to solicitors from small practices, I find that many, sadly, are there only to gain their points.

I stress that EU law should be a negligence issue for them - miss the difficult EU point and they may have a claim made against them.

It is not an optional extra.

It has been part of our national law ever since we joined the EU.

It is also interesting, lucrative and fun.

Susan Singleton, Singletons, London

BENEVOLENT SUPPORT

One of my neighbours until a few weeks ago was a 68-year-old former solicitor, a diagnosed manic depressive whose bouts of mental illness have left him unable to work and living on state benefits for more than 30 years.

My other neighbour was his close friend and 70-year-old landlady and when she died suddenly, following a fall in the street, he was obliged to find somewhere else to live.

After two nights in his new accommodation he cut his wrists and took an overdose.

He survived, was sectioned, and is still in the local psychiatric hospital.

I have seen him briefly and although he is starting to feel better he has many anxieties about the future.

He told me how grateful he was to have received some money from the Solicitors Benevolent Association.

It is hard to explain how much this means to a man whose possessions are so pitifully inadequate that they would be rejected by the average charity shop.

Thank you on his behalf and on behalf of others like him.

Nigel Jeffares, Pershore, Worcestershire

GET OUT OF THE POOL

I am surprised that only one letter appears to have been printed concerning the item 'Indemnity: Good firms to pay for bad' ([2002] Gazette, 27 June, 1).

I cannot understand how those firms in the assigned risks pool (ARP) are allowed to continue in practice if they have not paid their indemnity insurance premiums.

Surely one of the reasons why they are in the ARP in the first place is because they cannot obtain insurance in the open market and if one of the reasons was because of such firms being high-risk then why should they be allowed to continue in practice if they are not paying their indemnity premiums?

Why should those firms who are paying their indemnity premiums now suffer an increase in such premiums as a result of other firms not paying their premiums?

I would like to know why such firms and partners are issued with practising certificates if they have not paid their indemnity insurance premiums.

John Rabey, John Rabey & Co, Truro, Cornwall

CHAMPERTY: OBJECTION

I refer to your recent article regarding champerty, particularly the comment by Amelans, which will argue that champerty arises because assessors' fees depend on how much they knock off a solicitors' bill, but who have no legitimate interest in the proceedings.

I take exception, on a personal level, since I am a negotiator acting on behalf of two insurance companies.

I am paid a set fee (nominal), win, lose or draw.

My payment does not depend in any way, shape or form on how much I save the insurance companies that instruct me.

It is wrong for Amelans to suggest that all assessors/ negotiators are paid by results - this is not so.

Furthermore, I object to the suggestion that 'cosy deals' are struck, urging firms to inflate their bills so that when costs are slashed the firm and the assessors are still in pocket, but the insurer is left short-changed.

FA Rouse, FA Rouse & Co, Cambridge

SATELLITES IN ORBIT

Further to MJ Cockx's letter (see [2002] Gazette, 11 July, 18) I have been advised that following the House of Lords' judgment in Callery v Gray, one insurer has instructed its costs negotiators that the maximum they can offer is a 20% success fee and an insurance premium of 200 (for RTA cases) or 300 (for other cases).

Clearly the satellite litigation will be continuing.

Martin Curnow, Jane Loveday Solicitors, Launceston, Cornwall

ContributionsThe Editor welcomes letters and contributions for the Comment column.

Shorter letters (max 250 words) have a much better chance of publication.

All letters, including e-mails, must include a full postal address and practice details.

They should be sent to the Editor, the Law Society's Gazette, 6th Floor, Newspaper House, 8-16 Great New Street, London EC4A 3BN; LDE 100; fax 020 7831 0869.E-mail your letters to jonathan.ames@lawsociety.org.uk