Letters to the Editor

PULLING TOGETHER

I was almost as angered by John Wilson's letter (see [2002] Gazette, 26 September, 18) as he was by your original article.

At the very least the man ought to be gently whipped with a wet copy of the Claims Direct administration order.

The simple fact is that, far from this being a case of 'greed' and lawyers hoping for 'easy money', many of us felt that we had no option.

In the spring of 1999, a whole new phenomenon entered the legal profession, a company called Claims Direct.

They could afford to do the things we had hoped for, like adverts on national television and in the daily newspapers.

They could even afford to advertise on the back of the toilet doors at service stations.

The public liked this company, and the others that came to prominence soon after.

Because they were not obviously solicitors, people wanted to use them.

At the firm where I was working at the time, work off the streets almost dried up and we had the stark choice of either closing the personal injury department down or joining with these companies.

Necessity and greed are not the same thing.

If joining with these companies gave some firms a commercial advantage over their rivals, then is this not what we are all trying to do in a number of different ways? Maybe others were fortunate and these companies which so affected my firm did not harm them at all.

I do not think this gives them the right to criticise those of us who were.

Richard O'Hagan, Rowberry Morris, Reading

PRACTICAL ALTERNATIVE

After 25 years in both the public and private sector, I committed myself to four years of law studies and 30,000-plus in fees and lost wages (by switching to part-time hours).

Tutors were excited at my qualifications (business studies and economics) and experience, including 13 years of interviewing and giving advice on social security benefits on a daily basis.

They enthused that both high street and medium- sized firms would be interested in me.

Having gained both my CPE and LPC, and 230 letters of application later, I realise that my age (45) is a barrier.

I am loath to admit that I have spent that time and money for nothing and have started a distance-learning course to convert my CPE to an LLB (another perceived barrier).

I believe that the legal practice course is crippling would-be solicitors and should be either:

l Limited to those with a training contract or converting from legal executives;

l Restructured so that time is spent with firms doing practical work, thereby counting as the training contract period.

This would require co-ordination by the Law Society, so that firms would be obliged to take on these students/trainees.

As they would be unpaid this should not prove difficult, or;

l Accepted in itself as bestowing qualified status.

John Williamson, Saxilby, Lincoln

MINIMUM IMPACT

As a duty solicitor, I read with interest the judgment in British Nursing Association v Inland Revenue (National Minimum Wage Compliance Team) [2002] IRLR 480, that nurses at home on rota to take telephone calls were 'working' throughout their shifts and had to be paid the minimum wage for the hours on call.

Does this mean my employer has to pay me 4.20 for each hour I am on the duty solicitor rota? Bearing in mind that he also has to pay 10% employers' National Insurance on top, this makes the hourly rate paid 4.62.

But his rota payment from the Legal Services Commission is only 4.24 per hour, so he is 38p per hour out of pocket.

I am sure this is yet another reason to be 'grateful' for having a crime franchise, as I am to be reminded that I spent eight years of my life studying for a job that pays the minimum wage for part of my working day.

Denise Hanks, Edward Oliver & Bellis, Ilford, Essex

PUBLIC DEBATE

I wish to commend to other members of the profession the regional seminars organised by the Law Society in major cities.

I attended the first, in Newcastle on 19 September, and I think every member of the profession who has an interest in conveyancing, probate and the other matters referred to in the consultation document (In the Public Interest) should make an effort to attend and be heard.

How many of us have even considered the document? Do we know its response deadline, 22 November? It is vital that we familiarise ourselves with it so that the proposals do not go unchallenged.

It no good moaning afterwards; the regional seminars should be packed out.

D Gibson, president, Newcastle upon Tyne Law Society