Letters to the Editor

BEAUTIFUL GAME?

Although the Government may have abandoned spin, it would seem that Andrew Parker of Beachcroft Wansbroughs has taken up the mantle in his comments to you on the Claims Direct test cases (see [2002] Gazette, 25July, 1).

In footballing terms, he lost 3-0 in the Court of Appeal on Callery v Gray.

He lost 4-1 in the House of Lords.

Another four goals were put past his team in the Claims Direct cases, as he argued for a recoverable premium of 140 and the costs judge allowed more than four times that amount at 621.

Before the dreaded chairman's vote of confidence arrives, he claims a victory by saying the costs judge also decided that no after-the-event premium will normally be allowed where liability has been admitted before the claimant's policy was taken out.

To highlight one comment in a judgment is stretching matters.

The Court of Appeal dealt fully with this issue in the 3-0 trouncing.

It acknowledged that no case was ever free from risk, even where liability was not in issue, and also the need for own disbursements cover.

To suggest it is unreasonable to insure after an admission of liability is a recipe for under-settling, leaving claimants at the mercy of defendants' low part 36 offers.

To stop any more defeats, perhaps the defendants want the claimants to be banned from scoring?

David Hartley, director, Accident Line Services

CHAOS THEORY

'Cost chaos continues' trumpets your article (see [2002] Gazette, 11 July, 4).

This headline was as misleading as your editorial claim that the House of Lords spent a year ruminating on Callery v Gray.

It is part of an ongoing campaign by the insurance industry, dutifully covered in your pages, to undermine legal costs and weaken the ability of solicitors to act effectively for claimants.

Where is the evidence that costs have risen significantly post civil procedure rules? Costs may well have increased in dealing with the conditional fee agreement, risk assessment and insurance.

When a case is issued, there are now questionnaires to complete for the court.

But these arise from a policy change in the funding of personal injury claims - the Access to Justice Act 1999.

If insurers are not happy with that they should be addressing Parliament over the political issue of who pays? Instead, they are attempting to subvert the purpose of the Act by persuading judges that costs are too high.

It is the insurers who instruct cost negotiators (the 'cottage industry').

It is the insurers who appealed Callery, Sarwar and Tilbey (the 'satellite litigation').

The so-called 'chaos' is of their making as a smokescreen to emasculate conditional fees.

It must be resisted in the interest of access to justice.

Mark Turnbull, Thompsons, Manchester

KEEPING VALUES

I am surprised that there has been so little discussion in your correspondence columns about the future regulation of legal services.

In particular, the prospect of such services being provided by commercial organisations.

That proposal, if implemented, would strike at the core of high-street practice.

In a civilised society, we should expect two fundamentals of our legal profession - independence and freedom of choice.

I fail to see how these fundamentals could be protected or enhanced if the provision of legal services were to fall into the hands of the commercial sector.

The adage 'he who pays the piper calls the tune' is not without foundation and we only have to look at the Andersen saga to see what happens when it all goes wrong.

You recently published an excellent article by the Presidents of the Law Societies of Scotland, Ireland and Northern Ireland (see [2002] Gazette, 4 July, 21).

I commend that article as compulsory reading to every Law Society Council member and every local Society president.

It makes a cogent case for the protection of the core values of the solicitors' profession.

Trevor Wheatley, Wace Morgan, Shrewsbury

HELPING THE NEEDY

The trustees of the Solicitors Benevolent Association (SBA) will be heartened by the letter from Nigel Jeffares (see [2002] Gazette, 25 July, 18) expressing appreciation for the help given to a local former solicitor suffering from mental illness.

We have a network of directors and representatives countrywide helping such cases, but urge all members to bring to our notice potential new beneficiaries in need of financial help.

Nick Lorimer, secretary, Solicitors Benevolent Association