Letters to the Editor

BACKING PARALEGALS

Having worked as a paralegal at Alexander Harris Solicitors, a specialist clinical negligence firm, since July 2002, I was disappointed to learn that some law firms seem to be using their paralegals as cheap labour rather than as valued members of staff (see [2003] Gazette, 23 January, 24).

Some firms may exploit paralegals in this way, but my experience is different.

At my firm we are treated as valuable members of staff from the outset.

In my case, I have had the opportunity to become involved in the measles, mumps, and rubella litigation and the Shipman inquiry, opportunities that even the most experienced solicitors would relish.

Not only do we manage our own caseload, we are given the requisite support and training in order to cope with this responsibility.

Admittedly, there may not be a training contract available for each paralegal.

However, this is made clear at the start of our employment and, in any event, there can never be a guarantee in this regard.

Perhaps the answer would be to regulate the way in which law firms employ paralegals.

As it currently stands, there is no protection other than that provided under general employment law - and this can leave the gates open for some less reputable law firms to exploit the large numbers of legal practice course graduates who are desperate to secure a training contract.

Paralegals are and will remain an important part of the legal workplace - and should be treated with the respect that they deserve.

Lisa Elkin, Alexander Harris, Altrincham, Cheshire

CUTTING RED TAPE

I would like to clarify some points raised in your article 'Solicitors cast doubt on future of FAINs over lack of funding' (see [2003] Gazette, 16 January, 4).

Participants in these Family Advice and Information Networks receive an additional payment, in recognition of their skill, on top of their normal legal help rates and disbursements in undertaking the nature of the exploratory work involved in FAINs.

Should legal proceedings become appropriate, certificated rates apply.

Participants are compensated for the time taken to do research, which constitutes the major part of administration associated with FAINs.

The Legal Services Commission (LSC) arranged de-briefing sessions and we welcome feedback from the profession.

Solicitors' comments will shape the future direction of FAINs and help the LSC to design the way participants would like to work in the future.

The de-briefing sessions were registered for CPD points - and the feedback was generally positive.

The LSC is committed to reducing bureaucracy across all its work.

We accept that the research creates some additional work, but expert feedback from solicitors is critical.

The research team will shortly submit its interim report to the LSC, and we will carefully consider the recommendations it makes.

Finally, you state that the pilot will be rolled out in 15 areas.

Our stated position is that 15 areas are under consideration, and we expect to make a final decision over the next few weeks.

Angela Carroll, head of projects family law and mediation, Legal Services Commission

FAIR AUDIENCE

I note that the new chairman of the Bar Council is suggesting that the council should regulate the conduct of solicitor-advocates (see [2003] Gazette, 9 January, 5).

Having in the past had dealings with the council, and in particular transferring my rights of audience over to my becoming a solicitor, and having viewed the difficulty which others of my colleagues have had in transferring their rights of audience over to their new professional role as solicitors, I will take a great deal of persuasion that the council could ever have the interests of solicitors, let alone solicitor-advocates at heart.

My experience of the council is that it has no enthusiasm at all for former barristers transferring their rights of audience.

Instead, it takes a legalistic and unhelpful stance on former barristers who have qualified as solicitors retaining or reinstating their rights of audience.

The standard argument run by the council is that as former barristers employed as solicitors, they are employed in the position of solicitors, not barristers and therefore rights of audience should not be transferred.

Luckily, the Law Society does not take quite such a foolish view.

While I have the greatest of respect for the ability of most members of the bar, we should remember that the council is the trade union of one of our competitors, at least in litigation.

Andrew Dalton, senior partner and solicitor-advocate, White Dalton Partnership, Dunstable