Letters to the Editor

Auditor calls tune

I hope that the irony on the front page of your recent edition was deliberate (see [2002] Gazette, 28 November, 1).

The first headline referred to the National Audit Office study into the Community Legal Service (CLS), declaring that firms should be axed for over billing in excess of 20%.

The second headline indicated that the Law Society's law management section conference urged firms to drop their least profitable clients.

If the profession took note of the second headline there would not be a CLS.

Everything is relative and, as we were always taught in maths, 20% of nothing is nothing.

At our recent cost audit we were deducted 20% of a bill - the princely sum of 10.77.

I hope that paying the salary for the auditor to uncover this dissolute act was well worth it.

The myriad of CLS regulations is designed to minimise costs and to deal with divorce, other family matters, and social deprivation in a methodical and regulated way.

Unfortunately, the complex legal emotional and personal issues in family meltdown and social unease are messy.

In one case, we were disallowed time for legal research - the auditors 'felt' that the criterion of 'novel, developing or unusually complex point of law' was not met.

Strange that, after extensive education, continuing professional development and CLS training requirements, our expertise is at the mercy of the auditor's feelings.

Jane Staff, senior partner, Salmons, Stoke-on-Trent

Bigger is not better

In relation to the letter from Jonathan Gulliford of the RAC (see [2002] Gazette, 28 November, 18), I believe that the majority of solicitors' firms are trying to modernise to provide the service that their clients require.

This has to be flexible to meet various clients' needs.

It is not sufficient to believe that clients will all require the same kind of service, but rather to cater for individual clients' requirements.

This is why I believe that the high-street firm does have a large part to play.

I wonder why the RAC wants suddenly to provide legal services and I am disappointed that it does not feel that the legal profession is adapting to meet the needs of its clients.

The letter states that the RAC and many other reputable providers have made their positions clear although, at the moment, the RAC cannot be considered as a reputable provider as it has no experience in this area at all.

I do not believe that large organisations, a distance away from the majority of clients, are able to meet client needs and would therefore be in the best interest of clients in the future.

Mark Williams, Donaldson West, Crowborough, East Sussex

Unwanted advice

I was angered to read that accountants were encouraging us to 'drop the dross' and reject clients to grow profits (see [2002] Gazette, 28 November, 1).

On this basis, which firm in the country would do legal aid work, particularly criminal work, which is paid so atrociously?

It is clear that there is a large divide between the big city firms which do profitable commercial work and the smaller high-street practices, such as my own firm, which provide a full legal service to all clients, regardless of means.

Many firms and individual solicitors have a real social concern and responsibility, and advice from accountants simply to look after our own affairs and profitability is only likely to increase the divide and is as far as I am concerned unacceptable.

Ian Pratt, RJR, Isle of Wight

Political issue

Your recent editorial suggested that the conditional fee agreement regime was grinding to a halt (see [2002] Gazette, 21 November, 16).

You are right, and the latest appeal decision from Oldham County Court sums up a scheme that no longer works.

There are now regular technical challenges to the enforceability of the Law Society 'transitional' CFA .

Many firms operated this CFA in 2000.

Because of the significance of the challenge - if successful no payment of any costs under the CFA - the Law Society intervened in my case of Hollins v Russell.

The circuit judge sitting at Manchester County Court held that the transitional model CFA was unenforceable.

So now I am faced with taking my case to the Court to Appeal.

Every week we read of a case affecting personal injuries, but these cases will not resolve the problems with the system, because the system was set up wrongly.

The decision is now a political one, and needs to be sorted quickly.

Tony Machowski, Gruber Garratt, Oldham