Letters to the Editor

DEADLINE LOOMS

Your article 'The Rising Tide' (see [2002] Gazette, 8 August, 20) gave a misleading impression to solicitors with regard to the purchasing of their professional indemnity insurance.

The reference to 'there is good news' for solicitors who fail to renew their insurance by 1 September, as cover can now be backdated by 60 days, following a change in the minimum terms and conditions, gives a false sense of security to firms of solicitors.

The solicitor indemnity insurance rules require firms to have their insurance in place by 1 September.

There is no guarantee that any cover will be available following this date, especially given reducing capacity in the market.

Firms that leave their insurance arrangements too late run the risk of not being able to obtain cover and automatically falling into the assigned risks pool, which in itself means increased premium and supervision requirements.

Also, those firms which are unfortunate enough to have a claim or potential claim arise after 31 August and before renewing will almost certainly be unable to obtain cover in the market.

Most solicitors' firms place their insurance by 1 September, as required by the rules, and this should be commended.

It is not good news for solicitors that they can delay putting their professional indemnity cover in place, as this could threaten the existence of their practices.

It also increases the time the principals of these firms are in breach of the solicitor indemnity insurance rules.

Firms should ensure that they have a valid quotation for their insurance well before 1 September and have finalised their arrangements by that date.

Or they may pay the price.

David Coughlan, head of Zurich Professional

POINTING THE FINGER

The criminal justice White Paper does not deal in any way with the worst aspect of the criminal justice system, which is the of blame and complaint.

The courts blame the lawyers, the lawyers blame one another, the courts or the police, and the police blame the lawyers or the courts.

Round it goes, the parcel of blame, looking for a home.

Blame and complaint achieve nothing, or worse, they are counter-productive because of the resentment and demoralisation they generate.

At most, they exorcise a few of the detractors' personal demons.

The best approach for the system to work well is to assume that everyone is competent and conscientious and that they are doing their best in difficult circumstances.

A minority is not, but the system can cope with such people.

That would allow co-operation to become a principle and not a homeless spirit.

The government also has a part to play.

At the moment, it seems to believe that the personnel who work in the system are best regulated by criticism and sanctions.

It is a fascinating state of affairs that so much intellect can get personnel management so wrong.

Paul Penney, Gordon & Penney, Weston-super-Mare, Somerset

PLAYING THE GAME

I refer to your recent article headed 'Firms disappointed by Commonwealth exclusion as Addleshaws rules the games' (see [2002] Gazette, 25 July, 9).

Has it come to the stage that law firms are unable to entertain clients unless they have sponsored an event or are involved in corporate hospitality on some grand scale?

It would appear so from your article, and I was saddened to read that the managing partner of DLA's Manchester office confirmed that it stayed away - as did other law firms.

It does not bother me or my partners one jot that Addleshaws were sponsors of the Commonwealth Games.

My partners and I (and other members of Berg & Co) enjoyed the games, supported Manchester, and entertained clients at a substantially lower cost than sponsorship would have incurred.

We purchased tickets which were used by Berg & Co to entertain clients.

Peter Woolf, Berg & Co, Manchester

WORD PERFECT

Lord Woolf challenges us to come up with a plain English version of pro bono (see [2002] Gazette, 8 August, 5).

How about 'a contract with the Legal Services Commission'?

David Campion, Humfrys & Symonds, Hereford