Letters to the Editor

BANKING ON FUNDS

As someone who deals daily with solicitors' negotiations with banks, I read with interest your recent article (see [2002] Gazette, 24 October, 1).

While I appreciate the ethical attraction of removing the profitability of short-term client funds from solicitors and using it to fund the compensation fund, there are some very real practical considerations that the Law Society and its members need to consider if the real beneficiaries are to remain in the legal profession.

Firstly, solicitors currently negotiate all their banking arrangements including the returns on client funds and benefit directly from any improvements agreed.

If they cannot benefit from the income from client funds in future, returns on client funds will not figure in their bank negotiations in future and these funds will not be actively managed to maximise returns.

The result will be that banks will take advantage of this lack of pressure and increase their margins and reduce the interest returns paid and funds that would have stayed within the legal profession will increasingly find their way back to the banks' coffers.

The other vital consideration is the actual nature of short-term client account funds.

In my experience these relate predominantly to conveyancing for most practices.

Conveyancing is a highly competitive business these days and this is reflected in low fees.

Interest earned on short-term funds in and around completion often provides the only real profit for solicitors and allows them to stay in the market.

In addition, why should this one market sector bear the brunt of supplying the funding for the compensation fund? Two likely consequences of pursuing such a policy will be substantially to increase bank profitability from solicitors' accounts and to make conveyancing by solicitors uncompetitive.

Both can only have a negative impact on the legal profession.

Charles Simon, Director, Attfield James Independent Banking Advisers, Castle Cary, Somerset

INDEPENDENCE BATTLE

I am afraid that I find Andrew Holroyd's argument concerning the liberalisation of legal services (see [2002] Gazette, 24 October, 16) wholly unconvincing - and I do not suppose for one moment that I am alone.

Given the choice between the views of the presidents of the law societies of Scotland, Northern Ireland and the Republic of Ireland and those of Mr Holroyd, I know which I would prefer.

What is really at stake here is the future independence of general legal practice.

It is being proposed that independence should be sacrificed to appease the Lord Chancellors Department which clearly wants to open up legal practice to big business.

I do not believe that there is any support for this from general practitioners whatsoever.

Trevor Wheatley, Wace Morgan, Shrewsbury

TIME AND MONEY

I have read with interest the articles on low value clinical negligence claims (see [2002] Gazette, 17 October, 1, and Gazette, 7 November, 4).

As a clinical negligence lawyer, I am frustrated with the common misconception that lower value claims (that is, 10,000 or less) are essentially less complex and therefore less expensive to run than higher value claims.

Lower value claims often have complicated issues on causation.

I was not surprised to read that the average amount of work done on each case was between 19 and 23 hours.

Let us not forget, that the lawyers involved in the pilot scheme are among the most experienced clinical negligence lawyers in the country and thus are best able to deal with cases efficiently and effectively.

Personally, I am encouraged by the willingness of fellow professionals to set up such pilot schemes as ultimately, any system which proves quicker, cheaper and less emotionally fraught than traditional litigation can only be of benefit to both parties.

However, we must remain realistic about the time and expertise required on such cases.

I have yet to come across a clinical negligence lawyer who does not feel strongly about resolving matters quickly and cost effectively for their clients.

Ultimately, though, the objective is to remain in business.

Zo Buckley, Assistant Solicitor, Jack Thornley & Partners, Manchester

HORSE SENSE

Your front page article headed 'Government set to reign in indemnity principle' might be a reflection on Mr Blair's aspirations.

But surely your headline writer was looking for an equestrian metaphor?

David Boon, Thomas Flavell & Sons, Hinckley, Leicestershire