Letters to the Editor

KEEP IT IN THE FAMILY

I am prompted to write further to your article on family law (see [2002] Gazette, 12 September, 28).

I am a Fellow of the Institute of Legal Executives and am proud to be a member of the Law Society's Family Law Panel.

I became a member of the Family Mediators Association and for 30 years or more I have been actively involved in family law.

I subscribe to the Solicitors Family Law Association's code of practice and I was pleased to see that the Society produced a family law protocol.

The problem I have with the protocol is the number of practitioners who do not follow it and the difficulties that causes for me.

I am at pains to point out to my clients the terms of the protocol and how it governs my dealings with other practitioners.

When, as is depressingly often the case, the other practitioners do not comply, particularly where they act aggressively or contentiously, many clients see that as a sign of strength on the part of the other side and weakness in my case.

Many practitioners do not give notice of commencement of proceedings.

In one recent case the practitioner gave notice of neither the issue of the petition, nor the application for ancillary relief, nor an application for a residence order - without any, let alone any good, reason for the omission.

Your article reports Jane Craig as saying that the court can mete out punishment if it believes costs have been incurred unnecessarily because a solicitor has not acted in accordance with best practice.

That does not assist, save in the most serious of cases.

In any event, what the client wants in most cases is a reasonable and swift settlement of issues without a detailed argument at the end of the day, probably at great expense, as to the conduct of certain aspects of the matter.

As a prerequisite for any practitioner dealing in any family matter they should be required to adopt the Society's family law protocol/SFLA code of practice.

Furthermore, any originating application in family proceedings should require the practitioner responsible for the start of those proceedings to declare that the relevant protocol has been complied with, in line with the requirement imposed in the completion of the allocation questionnaire in civil proceedings.

Ian Ashley-Smith, Donaldson Dunstall, Bexhill-on-Sea, East Sussex

CHAOS RULES

I read your headline 'Appeal court slashes success fees to 5%' (see [2002] Gazette, 12 September, 1) with incredulity.

I then read the actual judgment in Halloran v Delaney with even more incredulity.

In relation to the substantive issue in that case, the judgment follows a rational and well- reasoned line of argument in reaching a finding.

Then in one throw-away paragraph of about nine lines the judge has expressed a view that is potentially likely to cause utter chaos to a funding regime that had become more and more clouded, unworkable, and contentious day by day for the past two years.

Whether the Court of Appeal realised that by making those comments it would bring further into issue the principle of access to justice, many millions of pounds, people's jobs and the viability of some people's businesses, we do not know.

The fact that the views are expressed in anticipation of retrospective application is itself a cause for wonderment.

The insurance industry has always made clear its distaste for the idea of recoverability of additional liabilities.

Perhaps we should reluctantly accept that its chaos theory is beginning to work.

Maybe increased damages and contingency fees are the answer.

However, this ludicrous situation can not be allowed to continue.

Sadly, until it has a direct effect on public opinion, thereby impacting on the government, little clarity is likely to be achieved.

Now is the time for the profession to shout loudly with one voice.

Neil Sugarman, Graham Leigh Pfeffer and Co, Bury

KEEPING CLEAN

Your correspondent David Kirk (see [2002] Gazette, 12 September, 16) is rightly concerned about the heavy burden on the profession caused by the money laundering rules.

Where I differ is with his assertion that almost all solicitors are fully aware of those rules.

Our risk management team has advised several firms on money laundering issues while helping them reduce their claims exposure.

As part of that process, we use questionnaires designed with input from business psychologists to find out just how aware staff are.

The results even from respectable firms show a widespread lack of understanding of the rules.

Mr Kirk asserts that one reason for the low number of reports may be that solicitors are weeding out and refusing to act in transactions.

However, that in itself does not necessarily mean that there is no duty to notify the National Criminal Intelligence Service.

Furthermore, the obligations are not confined to solicitors but extend to all their staff - secretaries, accounts clerks and receptionists.

The results of our work for solicitor-clients make clear that firms simply cannot afford to be complacent.

One solicitor who claimed he broke the law unwittingly has already been imprisoned (see [2002] Gazette, 25 July, 5) and others are known to be under investigation.

Frank Maher, head of professional indemnity, Weightman Vizards, Liverpool

SISTER ACT

At Donns Solicitors we were naturally disappointed not to feature within recent research conducted by the Gazette on the number of women making partnerships in top law firms (see [2002] Gazette, 12 September, 1).

Indeed, it would seem that we are hiding an important achievement under our bushel.

Nine out of 13 partners at Donns are women, as are four out of five associates.

This would seem quite a remarkable achievement in light of your front-page article last week, which highlights that on average just 18% of partners within the top law firms are women.

It brought more than a smile to our faces to know that, with a 69% proportion of female partners at Donns, we are well ahead of the highest proportion quoted (39%).

Whatever the having-it-all hype of the 90s said, the balance between career and family life is never going to be easy for the majority of women.

At Donns, we like to think that we have a progressive approach to women in the workplace.

This strategy has served us well in helping to attract some of the most highly qualified female lawyers who deserve their partnerships.

While comparing it to your statistics, it is an achievement of which the female partners at Donns are justifiably proud.

However, we still prefer to think of each partner reaching their status in recognition of their own achievement whatever sex they may be.

Hilary Meredith, managing partner, Donns, Manchester

TEAM SPIRIT

I read with some degree of amusement, but also frustration, John Edwards's letter (see [2002] Gazette, 5 September, 17) concerning a Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) recruitment advertisement the previous week.

Mr Edwards's letter ended 'no wonder it [the CPS] has got problems'.

The front page of the Gazette that week was dominated by the headline 'Criminal defence to face national crisis' and referred, rather ironically, to recruitment difficulties for criminal defence practitioners.

We all face issues and challenges, but for heaven's sake let us try to work together to face these rather than needlessly, and without apparent reason, having a go at our fellow professionals in the criminal justice system.

Colin Chapman, chief crown prosecutor, Northampton

ON THE BUTTON

Alexander Forbes, in its otherwise sensible critique of the way e-mail traffic is or should be conducted within our profession (see [2002] Gazette, 12 September, 42) makes an extraordinary assertion that 'it would be foolish to send correspondence, contracts or any other written information without' at least one person other the author thereof looking at the material first.

That shows a lack of understanding about how solicitors function on a daily basis.

Subject to any special internal arrangements that may be in place, in general the responsibility for a fee-earner's output rests entirely or primarily with that person.

Second opinions may of course be sought exceptionally, but to expect all correspondence, contracts and other written material to pass through a vetting procedure of the kind advised by Alexander Forbes would cut through the basis of professional independence and integrity, and would cause delay and additional costs.

Ramnik Shah, Preuveneers & Co, Mitcham, Surrey

BUILDING RED TAPE

I have noticed that because of building regulations affecting replacement windows and doors, the Law Society's conveyancing and land law committee says that 'it will now be necessary for the buyer's solicitors to check the position with the seller's solicitors and in appropriate cases to obtain a certificate issued by FENSA or the Local Authority Building Control'.

Why?

Why it is the responsibility of an already overburdened and underpaid solicitors' branch of the profession to investigate this matter? Why is it not the responsibility of the buyer's surveyor?

HL Miller, HL Miller & Co, London

SWITCHING OFF

I see from a recent issue that Npower is intending to compete with solicitors in the field of conveyancing (see [2002] Gazette, 5 September, 3).

Surely solicitors in private practice dealing with conveyancing have a way of hitting back at Npower.

Many of us purchase our gas and/or electricity from this company.

The best thing is to cease to do so and let Npower know why.

I shall be doing this from 1 January and that will be costing Npower approaching 2,000 a year.

In addition, our practice will be buying in its electricity elsewhere which will cost it a further 1,000.

JH Hawkesworth, Wright Atkinson & Pearson, Keighley, West Yorkshire

ON CALL

Matthew Raggett is not alone (see [2002] Gazette, 12 September, 17).

Some years ago, practitioners will remember, the AA took over running the duty solicitor telephone referral service.

One of my partners who was on duty in Bedford received a call from the AA, saying that it appreciated he was not on a rota for there but would he be willing to attend the police station in Melton Mowbray.

Some things never change, though I note that, this being the 21st century, the Legal Services Commission has managed to introduce a European dimension.

District Judge Neil Hickman, Aylesbury