Letters to the Editor

FRAUD FURY

The Gazette recently carried two articles on opposite pages about money laundering (see [2002] Gazette, 22 August, 4 and 5).

Both will have caused solicitors great irritation and disbelief.

On page 4 it was reported that the National Criminal Intelligence Service was 'slamming' solicitors for failing to make suspicious transaction reports.

This is a regular complaint, but no more valid for the regularity with which it is made.

Mr McNally should know (a) that almost all solicitors are fully aware of the money laundering rules; (b) almost all solicitors take them very seriously; and (c) that far too much of solicitors' time is spent, pro bono, trying to comply with what is a very complex area of law which, in a busy conveyancing practice, throws up difficult (and, in 99.9% of cases, irrelevant) problems every day.

Mr McNally, and all the other authority figures who berate solicitors for their alleged failures, should also be aware that one reason for the low number of reports may just be that they are doing their work well, and are weeding out, and refusing to act in, transactions where there is any doubt.

Another reason may just be that some solicitors are old-fashioned enough to recall a time when they owed a duty of confidentiality to clients, and, therefore, they maintain that unless there are clear indications to the contrary, they should abide by the confidentiality rules set by the Law Society.

The report on page 5 ('Solicitors fight money laundering case') is shocking, and demonstrates the lengths to which prosecutors (who clearly have no concept of the rules governing private practice) will go to 'pot a solicitor', and their determination to frighten the profession; and, on another level, the ridiculous consequences of an ill-thought-out legislative scheme.

I would call on the Law Society to take on the police and the Crown Prosecution Service in the case of Messrs Lowe and Heron, for whom all practising solicitors should express their support.

I do.

David Kirk, Simons Muirhead & Burton, London

BEARING THE LOAD

I refer to John Edwards' letter about a Crown Prosecution Service recruitment advertise-ment (see [2002] Gazette, 5 September, 17) - I wish I had the time or the money to 'jet off to an exotic place for the weekend'.

Perhaps Mr Edwards can?

What he fails to appreciate is that the CPS lawyer is 'out of shot' struggling with the other four bags of files, swollen with voluminous correspondence from defence solicitors, unused material, Human Rights Act material, tapes, videos etcetera.

(and, if he's lucky, some evidence).

The only problem we have locally is facetious comments from defence solicitors who are not laden like mules when they attend court.

Paul Griffin, Senior Crown Prosecutor, Crown Prosecution Service, Bournemouth

GOOD FOR NOTHING

In response to Lord Woolf's challenge to produce a plain English version of pro bono, I recommend (with slight amendment) the words of WS Gilbert in 'The Yeomen of the Guard', spoken by the jester applying for a post with the Archbishop of Canterbury: 'Whereas His Grace is paid 10,000 a year for being good, [lawyers are] good for nothing'.

Howard Johnson, consultant, Davies & Partners, Barnwood, Gloucester

BAD MANORS

If you have the misfortune to live behind common land, or even un-owned scrub land, watch out - you may have to pay to drive to your home.

Even I have recently been waylaid by my local lord of the manor and have had to hand over cash to be allowed to proceed on my way from my home (which has been in my family since 1919) to the public highway.

This latter-day Old Mob (he was active on Gerrards Cross Common from 1683 to 1687 and was - famously, but it turned out rather foolishly - the robber who held up Judge Jeffries here in Gerrards Cross) has produced a further twist to the tale.

He has successfully convinced the Land Registry that lords of manors also 'own' any so-called 'wasteland of the manor' in their parish.

He and his fellow lords up and down the country are now feverishly identifying every sow's ear of a layby, verge, bridleway, farm track et al, certain in the knowledge that the government's recent legislation will turn each tract into a silk purse.

Thanks to Labour's inept solution to the legal anomaly of vehicular access over common land, (the Countryside Act 2002) it is my opinion that, eventually, some 100,000 home owners will discover their access not to be the inalienable right of way they thought it to be.

They will find that the Countryside Act will have, in fact, made it lawful for their local lord of the manor to bar the sale of their homes until they have paid the government's prescribed Danegeld to their lord.

Trevor Kent, former president, National Association of Estate Agents

STEREOTYPICAL VIEW

I was interested to read that Bates Wells & Braithwaite had won what was thought to be the first employment tribunal ruling in favour of a German employee under the Race Relations Act (see [2002] Gazette, 5 September, 8).

Coventry Law Centre won a tribunal claim for a German national who had suffered racial abuse during Euro 96 in the Birmingham Employment Tribunal.

The abuse included drawing swastikas and cartoons of Hitler as well as racist remarks and forced our client to stay away from work on the day England played Germany.

It seems that stereotypical attitudes take a long time to change.

Fiona Monk, Coventry Law Centre

RECORD BREAKER

With the assistance of the opposing solicitors and a very helpful district judge, we recently completed divorce proceedings in less than one hour, including issue of the petition, lodgement of the acknowledgment of service, processing of the special procedure application, declaration of decree nisi in open court, and pronouncement of decree absolute.

We also obtained a consent order dealing with the parties' applications for ancillary relief within the same timescale.

Is this a record?

B A Reed, Gersten & Nixon, London

ENDURING PROTECTION

In relation to one client who was unfortunate enough to have a major stroke, I have just received an order of the Court of Protection dated 3 March and entered on 15 August.

The lottery of life means that none of us knows when we will lose mental capacity, but I would not wish an application to the Court of Protection for the appointment of a receiver on my very, very worst enemy.

I believe it is a national scandal that the central office for information is not being commissioned by a government body (how about the Lord Chancellor's Department?) to advertise on television informing every person over the age of 18 that, if they have at least one person they trust, they should put in place an enduring power of attorney.

It is simply a case of hoping for the best and preparing for the worst.

The enduring powers of attorney should be on a regular review but, in a society where rights are so important, is it not everyone's right to know what is likely to hit their family if they have an accident or illness and lose capacity and they have to deal with the Public Guardianship Office and the Court of Protection in their present parlous state?

Liz Holdsworth, Wace Morgan, Shrewsbury

DUTY CALLS

My firm received a letter from the Legal Services Commission dated 25 July suggesting that we did not accept a reasonable number of duty solicitor panel calls.

I discovered that other local practitioners received a similar letter and we all responded to request the detailed information to support the complaint.

We received a reply to confirm that detailed information could not be made available and the Legal Services Commission was to ask that changes be made in the way that information is recorded and analysed.

Imagine my anxiety when on a camp site in the south of France on Thursday 29 August at 6.15pm BST, while sampling the local grape, I received a call on my mobile asking if I was available to attend at Pembroke Dock police station.

I did what I always do and used my common sense.

I am sure, like all other duty solicitors, I accept panel calls if I possibly can, but if for whatever reason I am not available, I say so.

I have written to explain my behaviour and am hopeful that my explanation will be acceptable.

Matthew Raggett, Eaton-Evans & Morrise, Pembrokeshire

BALANCING THE BOOKS

The figures in last week's Gazette (see [2002] Gazette, 5 September, 1) enable a rough calculation of the cost per case of public defenders work to be made.

Ignoring completely the set-up costs (since I am sure that the government will seek to persuade us that those one-off costs should be ignored) the rough cost per case of the 1,709 matters handled works out at an average 877.

This cost will undoubtedly be higher than any other practitioner in private practice.

Alternatively, calculating the likely costs generated by 1,709 matters to a private practitioner under the franchise arrangements, we find that even if we calculate them all as category 1 higher standard fees (again a generous error in the government's favour) then they would have generated no more than 712,653, covering only half of the first year's running costs.

I personally have no doubt as to my accountant's advice in the face of those figures - a 1.75 million year-one loss would close the business.

If the government can't balance the books at criminal legal aid rates, how is the profession expected to fare?

No doubt the spin doctors will give us the answer.

Paul Hinds, Paul Hinds & Co, Leeds

POINTING THE FINGER

Having read Paul Penney's letter (see [2002] Gazette, 22 August, 20) about 'courts blaming lawyers, lawyers blaming one another, the courts or the police, and the police blaming lawyers or the court', it is clear that we need to urgently find out who is to blame for this blaming.

Gordon Turner, Roiter Zucker, London

NO APPROVAL NEEDED

How amusing to read in the Gazette that the US president must first seek Congressional approval for a war against Iraq (see [2002] Gazette, 30 August, 6).

What a contrast with this country, where the British president - sorry, prime minister - can declare war without any parliamentary authority.

Paul Courtine, Slough