Letters to the Editor

QUESTION OF VALUES

I was interested to read the letter on the 'supermarket law' debate from the head of RAC legal services (see [2002] Gazette, 28 November, 18).

The idea that commercial entities have identified a market into which they can sell legal services (together with other services) is hardly new.

The revelation that they would prefer to do so through in-house lawyers, but with the benefit of the regulated framework applicable to solicitors in independent practice, is surely little more than a statement of the obvious.

There are, as there always have been, good reasons why those employed by a commercial organisation are inhibited from provision of these services direct to the public as solicitors.

Equally, there are sound reasons why solicitors' services can already be offered to the public through incorporated practice, but subject to key requirements for solicitor control and the exclusion of fee-sharing.

These reasons are not about self-interest.

They are about the protection of the public interest, and about the self-discipline and self-respect of this profession.

There is no need for solicitors to deprecate the respectability or good commercial sense of those organisations wishing to exploit this perceived market for profit, any more than there is cause for those organisations to denigrate the quality of services provided by solicitors.

But it is necessary to see clearly that this is a debate about two different forms of service provision - one genuinely independent in which the core values are paramount and secured; the other tied, in which the core values are inevitably compromised and put at risk.

This vital distinction may be obscured but will not be resolved by placing employed lawyers in a ring-fenced outhouse.

John Bailie, chief executive, the Law Society of Northern Ireland

CLIENTS COME FIRST

I read with interest your front-page article regarding referral fees (see [2002] Gazette, 12 December, 1).

The Law Society Council is woefully out of touch with the realities of running a modern practice.

More and more firms, particularly those offering conveyancing and personal injury services, require these referrals to stay afloat in an increasingly competitive legal environment.

The legal marketplace has changed dramatically over the past few years.

It is increasingly e-based, nationwide in scope, and price competitive.

Referral fees, whether they are classified as being commissions, marketing or administration fees, help ensure the viability of many small and medium-sized firms - and thus protect consumers from all the disadvantages of an overly restrictive marketplace.

The opponents to lifting the ban apparently expressed concern over solicitors' independence if the ban were removed.

At best, this argument is merely facile and at worst it is terribly patronising.

Solicitors are governed by a strict code of professional conduct.

If confronted with conflicts of interest or other ethical dilemmas when dealing with matters emanating from a referring party, all solicitors know that they must at all times act in the best interests of the client, not the referring or any other third party.

The minority of solicitors who breach this principle of professional ethics can and should be subject to disciplinary proceedings.

Russell Sender, managing partner, Goldwater Sender, London NW11

CODE BREAKERS

We are pleased that the Law Society Council has decided not to change the introduction and referral code.

We learn of the practices of some firms only when clients transfer their cases to us.

It is a shame that the profession has allowed itself to be hijacked by outside interests in this way because, whichever way you look at it or whatever name you give it, solicitors who buy in cases are not only breaching the referral code but are giving part of their profit costs away.

We thought that the ban would go and, though regrettable, it would, at least, have allowed our firm and no doubt many others to compete on an even playing field.

What is crucial now is that the Law Society spells out, in the clearest terms, what the rule is and enforces it.

Most firms know who is paying referral fees and who is not.

It ought not to be that difficult.

While we will observe the code, we fear that significant numbers will continue to ignore it without any penalty.

Joe Egan, Joe Egan Solicitors, Bolton