Letters to the Editor

STARING INTO THE ABYSS

I am sure that I cannot be the only solicitor who is struck by the juxtaposition of your editorial about the future of public funding alongside an article extolling the virtues of pro bono work (see [2003] Gazette, 3 April, 13).

We have just been informed by the Legal Services Commission (LSC) that our quota of family matter starts for this coming year has been reduced by almost half.

We could easily receive the same number of enquiries this year, but cannot take them on without funding.

We have the LSC's blessing to 'cherry pick' the cases we take on, so we now find ourselves in the invidious position of having to enquire whether a would-be divorcee has property or not, and trying to assess whether a contact dispute is likely to be sufficiently acrimonious that it will end up in court and enable us to obtain a full certificate.

This means that those we cannot take on are dependent on the goodwill of voluntary organisations and firms undertaking pro bono work.

As long as these people are willing to advise the public on this basis, the government can cut legal aid provision and rely instead on the voluntary sector.

This is not intended as a criticism of those who do pro bono work, who I am sure do so out of a genuine desire to help those who may not otherwise have access to legal advice.

But I would ask them to bear in mind that in so doing, they may unwittingly be hastening the decline of what is left of the legal aid sector.

Ruth Brown, Newman & Maxwell, Canvey Island, Essex

INDUCING DISCONTENT

I read with interest the comment ascribed to Simon Thackray in the article on seller's packs (see [2003] Gazette, 3 April, 1).

I believe he is being unduly optimistic in stating that it is an opportunity for the profession to be the first port of call for a would-be seller.

Many of us will no doubt recall that when the conveyancing protocol was first introduced, it was hoped that sellers would look on their solicitor in that way.

It was, of course, not to be as sellers soon showed their reluctance to pay out any money until a purchaser had actually been found.

There is still the same reluctance on the part of sellers to spend money when they do not have to and I am sure they will be enticed by the large estate agency chains, which will advertise that they will have the seller's pack prepared without charge, subject to an adjustment in commission rates on completion.

The seller would no doubt be 'encouraged' to use the particular conveyancing factory, whether solicitor or licensed conveyancer, supported by the agents, and not a local firm of their own choice.

Most high street practices simply do not have the financial resources to carry out work on anything other than a proper fee-paying basis - and therefore will not be able to compete against such apparently attractive inducements.

The scheme can only operate to the disadvantage of smaller firms, the survival of which will be in question.

Fred Crosskey, Leach Rawlence & Hart, Croydon, Surrey

SEEKING EURO ACCESS

The report from Vienna, 'Citizens "need direct access to Euro court"', illustrates yet another financial injustice suffered by private citizens of modest means (see [2003] Gazette, 6 March, 1).

Emasculation of legal aid means that justice is now denied to many citizens and many lawyers who are providing good service to the public are not being paid adequately.

In the case of access to the European Court of Justice (ECJ), the fact that, at present, one has first to exhaust seeking redress within the jurisdiction of our own courts, even to taking appeals to the House of Lords, means that the government and powerful corporate defendants have the financial means to defeat private citizens seeking redress through the ECJ.

Surely the time has come, if the Human Rights Act is to become a reality for private citizens, that they should have direct access to the ECJ.

Peter Carter-Ruck, Great Hallingbury, Essex

FINE-TUNING

The sums the Office for the Supervision of Solicitors (OSS) is directing solicitors to pay under the so-called 'polluter pays' measure are not 'fines' (see [2003] Gazette, 3 April, 5).

They do not reflect the seriousness of the case, as a fine would, but the cost of the OSS's investigation.

The measure recognises widespread concern that the whole profession is having to shoulder regulatory costs caused by a minority of solicitors.

For the sake of clarity, in respect of poor service the OSS can direct the solicitor to pay the client compensation up to 5,000, to reduce the bill or to correct mistakes and pay any costs involved.

In respect of misconduct, the OSS can express 'disapproval'; it can reprimand or severely reprimand, and it can place conditions on solicitors' practising certificates.

More serious or persistent cases - relating not only to misconduct but also now to poor service - may be referred by the OSS to the Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal, which can fine solicitors.

The OSS itself does not have the power to impose fines.

Martin O'Reilly, chief adjudicator, Office for the Supervision of Solicitors