LETTERS TO THE EDITOR

sad loss

I read with great regret the announcement that Winstanley-Burgess is to close this September (see [2003] Gazette, 20 March, 4).

Once again another leading firm in the field of immigration law, in which there is already a shortage of expert representation, has fallen victim to low legal aid rates.

Immigration law is a demanding area of practice, and although far from being glamorous, can be satisfying.

Our firm has a large immigration department including two solicitors who are members of the Law Society immigration law panel.

However, although their expertise is recognised by the Society, the Legal Services Commission still pays panel members the same rates as an immigration consultant who is not even a solicitor.

This must be one of the only areas of practice where a non-admitted staff member will be paid as much as a 20 years' qualified solicitor.

This has no doubt contributed to the lack of high-quality advisers in this field of law.

Why does a firm need to employ a high-quality solicitor when a poor-quality adviser will suffice and be more profitable? Until there is some recognition for experts in this field the situation will not improve.

Harjap Bhangal, Charles Simmons Solicitors, Ilford

CONTRACT MUDDLE

Have I got this right? The Legal Services Commission (LSC) proposes to terminate our contracts.

Yet it will not tell us what it has in mind to replace them (although it is a banker bet that it will be to the advantage of the LSC and to the commensurate detriment of the profession and a matter of indifference to the public), and it will not even confirm whether all contracted practitioners will be offered a new contract, whatever its terms may be.

On the other hand, we are expected to have a business plan, a financial plan, a services plan, a SWOT analysis, a variation analysis of income against expenditure, and all the other myriad unnecessary paraphernalia that goes with the contract regime, and yet we cannot even guarantee that as dedicated criminal practitioners that we will be in business this time next year.

We must be mad to put up with this.

Jonathan Brierley, solicitor, Penarth, Vale of Glamorgan

THE WRITE DIRECTION

I was delighted to read of the Law Society's commitment to plain English (see [2003] Gazette, 27 March, 21).

May we expect the minimum terms and conditions for professional indemnity insurance to be rewritten? That they are written in such obtuse language is a source of serious concern because the ability to understand them will certainty affect the financial well-being of the profession.

Advising solicitors, their insurers and brokers on the meaning of the successor practice provisions alone has kept me busy for the past two years.

I may be doing myself out of business by suggesting it, but surely the Society should set a better example.

It is possible - I reduced the successor practice provisions from 434 words to 163.

Solicitors have to be able to run their affairs with certainty.

The potential problems I am finding mean firms could be millions of pounds out of pocket.

Frank Maher, head of professional indemnity, Weightman Vizards, Liverpool

ENGINEERING CHANGE

As a solicitor working in the IT industry, I was interested to read Carolyn Kirby's piece on Programme Engineer (see [2003] Gazette, 27 February, 17).

The Law Society already has a Web site - a very good one.

Nothing outlined in the article is especially novel or a great leap forward over what the Web site already offers.

Software with which to send targeted e-mails to members is used by many organisations, and can be found for free for Linux systems and should certainly not cost 34 million to implement.

Perhaps the Society should have taken Charles Christian's advice on IT procurement before spending so much of its members' money.

Paul Heritage-Redpath

Solicitor, Videss Ltd, Liversedge

l Law Society President Carolyn Kirby responds: The purpose of the article was to draw attention to some of the more tangible benefits that solicitors will receive from Programme Engineer.

We are not, of course, spending 34 million solely on a Web site.

The programme will also establish new databases and information management systems which are crucial to the Society's work.

Information is arguably our most important asset and this system will enable us to protect it and use it more effectively.