Letters to the Editor

EYE ON THE FUTURE

I read with interest your editorial entitled 'Putting the 'Par' into paralegals' (see [2002] Gazette, 24 October, 16).

You rightly point out that serious allegations have been made by the Trainee Solicitors Group, particularly with regard the possible exploitation of paralegals.

You suggest that 'a more focused study needs to be conducted,' and I doubt that many paralegals would disagree with this conclusion.

Unfortunately, you went on to state in an omniscient manner that 'the best route to ensuring fairness and respect for so-called paralegals is for them to qualify as legal executives.' No doubt you have reached this conclusion after examining the meticulous findings of the 'focused study' that has not yet taken place, which is to say the least impressive.

With respect, the Institute of Legal Executives (ILEX) may not be the 'best route' for all paralegals - and I say this without any disrespect to our colleagues in that organisation.

From experience there are three main groups of paralegal:

- The experienced secretary, who has seen his/her workload evolve over the years to cover more file management and progression and less of the more typical secretarial tasks;

- The newly employed 'paralegal' who is taken on with little or no legal experience and is trained 'on the job' to take on file management (typically in areas such as conveyancing);

- The person that has obtained a law degree and passed the legal practice course, but cannot find a training contract.

Whereas the ILEX route may well be suitable for the first two examples shown above, I fear that you risk insulting some of your future readers, by suggesting that those in the third group should give up any aspirations that they hold of becoming solicitors, and head towards ILEX instead.

Jonathan Frayling, Sylvester & Mackett, Trowbridge, Wiltshire

FIRE DAMAGE

I was surprised to read the suggestion from Steve Janes of Matthew Arnold & Baldwin that fire authorities could face crippling damages claims from insurers if the fire service strikes go ahead and if damage to clients' properties increases in consequence of the strike (see [2002] Gazette, 31 October, 4).

Apart from the fact that most fire authorities are themselves insured (and if not any shortfall would simply have to be met from increased taxation since a local authority cannot simply stop operating) it is also clearly established law that not every breach of a statutory duty gives rise to a liability in damages.

Mr Janes appears to have overlooked the clear rulings of the courts in a series of cases including Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints v West Yorkshire Fire & Civil Defence Authority - a Court of Appeal decision precisely on that point - which held that the Fire Services Act 1947 creates administrative functions - the breach of which does not give rise to such liability in damages.

And as one judge also pointed out, the Act says nothing about the fire authority having any responsibility actually to put fires out.

Furthermore, if the Privy Council decision in GEC v Kingston & St Andrew Corporation (on vicarious liability in such a situation) is still good law then the fire authority will not be liable for the actions of strikers precisely because they will be engaged in a fundamental breach of contract by going on strike.

It is also possible that firefighters who strike might themselves be held liable to reimburse fire authorities for any loss and damage sustained in consequence of such breach of contract in any event.

MG Barnes, solicitor, West Yorkshire Fire Authority

COSTS CHAOS

I read with interest the letter from IP Chivers (see [2002] Gazette, 3 October, 20).

As a claimant PI solicitor, I - like many other practitioners - am concerned as to the apparently never-ending debate in relation to fees that seems no nearer to resolution and continues to bring uncertainty to solicitors and their clients alike.

If Halloran allows a retrospective reduction in success fees to 5%, does that mean that all conditional fee agreements prepared by solicitors without a split success fee are by implication defective?

Perhaps Mr Chivers was suitably qualified to have rights of audience before the district judge at Middlesbrough County Court in the case he quoted.

But if he was not, did his opponent raise the argument that costs negotiators are not in a position to appear before the courts in the first instance?

Jonathan Jacobs, Branton Edwards, Salford