Letters to the Editor

REFERRALS RUCK

There may be some who share the pragmatism of Russell Sender, who regards the payment of referral fees to intermediaries as a 'reality of modern practice' (see [2002] Gazette, 19 December, 11).

This present reality will extract a heavy price in reputational damage if the Law Society's practice rules do not properly protect the profession and the public interest ahead of individual self-interest.

Furthermore, before changing the rules, there is a need for objective research to analyse the effects of current market practice and for scrutiny of all current referral agreements.

While I well understand the challenges to small firms, to encourage competition otherwise than on the basis of performance and service standards is short-sighted.

In the motor industry, despite the advertising spend, most customers remain loyal to the brand they know and trust.

Third party unqualified intermediaries in pursuit of profits adopt strategies to deliver results and this often involves paying inducements to primary producers, such as agents and brokers.

There is no regulator or external quality control in matching cases to suitable advisers and the unregulated introducer has no practice rule 15 obligations.

The seeds of confusion, false expectations and thus future complaints are sown.

By relying on such intermediaries, a solicitor abdicates his professional responsibility and does the profession a disservice.

Michael Garson, Law Society Council member for residential conveyancing

KEEPING REPUTATIONS

I read with interest a recent article in the Gazette (see [2002] Gazette, 21 November, 1), reporting on the Law Society's intention to fight conveyancing deregulation.

The four conveyances I have recently been involved in included in total 10 different firms of solicitors.

The average time from start to the completion of the legal process was four months.

Each time the reason for the delay was that the solicitors were unable or unwilling to offer a decent service to their clients.

I have experienced solicitors who inform clients that they do not do completions on Fridays; have forgotten to obtain title deeds on the day of completion; advise their clients everything is in place to exchange contracts, in the knowledge that their clients would then be uncontactable for three weeks, and then realise that they have forgotten to obtain information needed to exchange.

I have also encountered solicitors who leave conveyancing files in the hands of their secretaries, offer undertakings to forward documentation out of their control, and are all too often rude.

If, as surveys suggest, deregulation will lead to several firms closing or seeking merger, I would encourage it to rid our profession of the (limited) number of muppets which ruin our reputation in the eyes of the public.

Paul Cooper, Walker Morris, Leeds

COSTS CONFUSION

I am confused by findings of overcharging by solicitors undertaking publicly funded work (see [2002] Gazette,.

28 November, 1).

Some reductions are to be expected because assessments are carried out on the 'standard basis', which means that if there is any doubt whether a particular element of the bill is reasonable then it will be disallowed.

Technically, every solicitor who, on assessment, has any reduction made to a legal aid bill of costs could be described as overcharging.

Therefore, the label is easy to stick on, but the impression created that solicitors are ripping off the taxpayer is difficult to dispel.

I suspect that the criticism is one made by some bureaucrat who does not understand the system.

Steve Wright, Fellow of the Association of Law Costs Draftsmen, John M Hayes Partnership, Manchester

EXPERIENCE SHOULD PAY

I have recently had several Crown Court bills returned, where the national taxing team has reduced the costs.

The reason given for the deduction was as follows: 'reduced to "B" grade as case does not justify a higher fee earner'.

One of these cases was a rape case, another case was robbery and another case of dangerous driving.

I dealt with the cases through from the magistrates' court to the Crown Court as I have higher rights of audience.

This in itself probably saves costs.

If someone with my experience is not expected to deal with the three types of cases that I have mentioned and be paid an appropriate fee, then where should we go?

Frank Winslett, higher court advocate, Stephen Rimmer & Co, Eastbourne