Letters to the Editor

ELITIST WARNING

Stephen Hewitt of Fisher Meredith claims that without large firms like his 'the foundations of the legal aid system will be irrevocably destroyed' (see [2003] Gazette, 30 January, 22).

That remark is arrogant, and offensive to all small and medium-sized firms.

It is axiomatic that larger firms formed a large part of the pre-franchise supply base.

Franchising was imposed on the profession because of a failure to safeguard the public purse (for example, pursuing unmeritorious claims); failure to implement quality control systems (for example, leading to ever-increasing Solicitors Indemnity Fund claims); failure to pursue socially inclusive recruitment policies (leading to well-founded claims that a career in law was the preserve of the few).

Mr Hewitt goes on to tell us that 'only small firms comprising cottage industry outlets will be left' and he really does not think that these are the suppliers the Legal Services Commission (LSC) would want.

Implicit in what he says is that firms smaller than Fisher Meredith are in some way 'amateurish'.

Mr Hewitt must have forgotten that we are all regulated by the Law Society and audited by the LSC.

With elitist attitudes like these it is no wonder that vulnerable legal aid solicitors are so attacked from those outside of the profession.

Ann Mear, Ann Mear & Co, Barnsley

REDUCING ACCESS

I was pleasantly surprised in reading the recent comment article by Jeff Zindani to find a refreshing change from the usual cant from others on the subject of the plight of personal injury sufferers (see [2003] Gazette, 30 January, 15).

Mr Zindani is right in commenting that a casualty of the chaotic implementation of the Civil Procedure Rules and of the withdrawal of legal aid and of the introduction of conditional fee agreements has been the concept that losing parties in litigation should pay the full reasonable costs of the winner.

A particular problem is the unwillingness of the court system to recognise that, by limiting recoverable costs, the consequence is simply a reduction of the economic viability in bringing cases.

The obvious immediate consequence has been a dramatic reduction in true access to justice, particularly for claimants.

The powers that be, far from congratulating themselves over the success of the rules, should be ashamed of themselves.

Robin Tilbrook, President, Mid-Essex Law Society, Ongar, Essex

MORE COMPETITION

I have not discerned any evidence to support Meg Andrews' contention that real progress is being made to improve the way the Public Guardianship Office (PGO) handles its caseload (see [2003] Gazette, 13 February, 30).

In November, I submitted an application for the appointment of a receiver.

Last week, I received notice that a hearing date had been set for 19 March.

In fact, the proposed patient had died in December, so the whole affair was a complete waste of time.

Furthermore, many of the problems that we are dealing with were caused by the PGO's own unilateral decisions.

Whatever happened to prior consultation or at least notification? The PGO seems to think it has all the answers.

I suspect that many of the changes it has introduced were put forward by lay and professional receivers.

I have a proposal to improve the PGO's performance.

Split the office into two.

Allocate half the cases to one and half to the other.

Reward the better team using a points system to record performance and customer satisfaction.

Competition will encourage a culture of quality service.

Having increased the fees last April (also without notice), the need for this is clear.

John Riddett, Fosters, Norwich

SPEED IS THE KEY

The most interesting and useful article by Tim Higham will be of great assistance to all conveyancers (see [2003] Gazette, 6 February, 35).

In particular, the new requirement of the Council of Mortgage Lenders (CML) for there to be a warranty in operation, given by the National House Building Council (NHBC) - or another warranty organisation- before funds are released for completion, will interest all those involved in conveying new homes.

Mr Higham implies that such a procedure is problematic.

However, I can confirm that the NHBC has been aware of issues for many months and has revised its procedures to ensure that, where a new property successfully passes its final inspection, our inspector will, in normal circumstances, prepare the cover note there and then and hand it to the builder on site.

The CML, Law Society, House Builders Federation, NHBC and other warranty bodies have established what constitutes a successful final inspection.

The agreed approach aims to ensure that homes will not pass the final inspection if there are any items that are likely to put the occupants at risk, cause significant disruption to rectify or result in a valid claim against the NHBC or other warranty bodies.

What solicitors and builders must ensure is that the cover note is passed on for disclosure to the purchaser's solicitors, who will require confirmation that a warranty is in place to enable the transaction to complete.

Speedy disclosure of the cover note to the purchaser's solicitors to answer any enquiry on this point will therefore need to become the norm in order for a swift completion to take place.

May I also correct a misapprehension of Mr Higham when he states that the NHBC already 'appears obliged by its own Buildmark policy to issue its ten-year cover on legal completion'.

As from 1 January 2003, completion is defined in our Buildmark cover as being the later of the date of legal completion or the date the NHBC agrees that the property substantially complies with our standards.

The latter part of the definition was added as a result of the changes in the CML handbook and the introduction of our new cover note procedure, which will assist our customers, both builders and homebuyers, to deal with those changes.

John Burman, company secretary, NHBC

BACKING PARALEGALS

There seems to be a common trend to equate paralegals as being those law graduates who are unable, for whatever reason, to obtain a training contract (see [2003] Gazette, 23 January, 24).

This is not the case.

Only a minority of paralegals throughout the country are law graduates.

Most paralegals are those who have worked their way up through law firms and have, through their own diligence and experience, become fee-earners.

Some have no formal qualifications, some have qualified through our association and some are Institute of Legal Executives (ILEX) members who have not attained the position of legal executive (there are, after all, only some 5,500 legal executives as opposed to some 22,000 ILEX members - and this ratio has been constant).

The title paralegal might be new (although we, as an association, have been going now since 1987), but the facts are still the same - virtually all solicitors' firms rely heavily on their unadmitted staff and did do even before the old Solicitors Managing Clerks Association was formed.

At the end of 1997, the Law Society published a report entitled Paralegal Staff in Solicitors' Firms.

The findings and conclusions can be summarised as follows: that such staff, properly qualified, enable solicitors to concentrate on the more complex cases and they also increase the productivity of firms; they make a great contribution to the efficiency of the solicitors' firms that employ them; whereas practical experience is of great value it is not, in itself, sufficient and that properly qualified paralegals will help to increase the efficiency of the legal profession and the confidence of its clients.

Law graduates who are unable to obtain training contracts or who are unable to afford to go on to the legal practice course, are not necessarily qualified to be paralegals.

A law degree is an academic qualification, whereas paralegals need to have an understanding of procedure - hence our postgraduate diploma in paralegal practice.

We as an association essentially cater for those unadmitted fee-earners who do not want (for whatever reason) to be solicitors but who do want to be career paralegals.

We, have the career paralegal in the forefront of our mind as a separate branch of the profession.

It must be borne in mind that some estimates put the number of non-admitted fee-earners in England and Wales as high as 150,000 - a vastly higher number than legal executives.

We are not so 'high profile' as ILEX but we do exist, and we also have a structure and a career progression route existing for future paralegals whether they be graduates or non-graduates.

We are currently in the process of a firmer method of self-regulation for the career paralegal, and I am sure that no employer considers our members as 'cheap but bright cannon-fodder'.

John Stacey-Hibbert, general secretary, the National Association of Paralegals, Exeter

PLEA FOR CHANCELLORS

Well done, the Gazette for stating, in plain terms, a few of the unwelcome truths about legal aid solicitors that we would all do well to acknowledge before it is too late (see [2003] Gazette, 13 February, 1).

On the one hand, you have those profligate legal aid lawyers, with their secretaries, under-secretaries, permanent secretaries, advisers, support staff and flunkies, not to mention their expensive cars, fancy offices and nine-to-five lives (if they work that long, which I doubt), mostly spent dressing up in fancy clothes and dining (when they are not bleeding the coffers dry, representing unworthy clients in even more unworthy causes).

On the other hand, ranged against the might of these parasites, you have one man, burdened with not one job but three, helped only by his secretary, doing his selfless best to promote justice and equality for us all, without thanks and, worst of all, for a pittance that most of those self-same parasites would consider an insult.

To cap it all, when someone does sit up and take notice of the sterling efforts this man is making and tries to give him a pay rise, there is an outcry.

Is it any wonder that lord chancellors everywhere are expressing their discontent and, more worrying still, are threatening to give up their thankless tasks because they cannot afford to carry on?

However, if I may be permitted to proffer one word of criticism, it is that you missed an opportunity to state, unequivocally, that there are far too many legal aid lawyers (how else could they have prised so much of our money from the coffers?) and far too few lord chancellors.

If the latter are to survive, this imbalance needs to be addressed.

Jeremy Garner, Stilwell & Harby, Dover

CALLING IT A DAY

I have opened my Gazette to see it is understood that Steve Orchard (see [2003] Gazette, 20 February, 1) is looking forward to leaving his job as chief executive at the Legal Services Commission.

Because of my day-to-day dealings with this organisation I know exactly how he feels.

G Guerin, Hooper Holt & Co, Redhill