Letters to the Editor

LEVEL PLAYING FIELD

On the subject of 'Bidding farewell to silk' (see [2003] Gazette, 9 May, 15) I think that your views are profoundly wrong.

The problem with the QC system is not so much its recognition of 'leaders in the profession' but rather the fact that it is virtually exclusive to those who are leaders in the field of advocacy.

It should recognise leaders in every field, be they advocates or not.

Secondly, what is wrong with the system is how QCs are selected.

A truly independent system free from the influence of the Lord Chancellor and not primarily dependent on the views of senior judges would be fairer and go a long way in answering the perceived unfairness that it militates against women, ethnic minorities and solicitors.

Stephen Lawson, consultant, Foot Anstey Sargent, Exeter

DRESSED TO IMPRESS

I have no axe to grind as I have not conducted advocacy for umpteen years.

However, this is a time when public respect for the professions is at an all-time low, to the detriment of society at large.

I suggest that abandonment of formal court dress would further erode this.

I recall an Australian experiment some years ago in family cases where robes were discarded and hearings were informal.

The consequences were dire.

Sandie Graff, Graff & Redfern, Richmond, Surrey

SHOWING INTEREST

If the policy on retained interest is explained in our client care leaflets, why should we be criticised or account for it? It is just an aspect of our charging structure.

I fear that the Law Society may sometimes be over-zealous in its efforts to promote our public image.

A few years ago, a client of mine, although he refused to pay for a telegraphic transfer, considered it unreasonable that my firm should have the interest on the amount of the cheque while it was being cleared, namely the period between the date of its issue and the date when it was debited to our account.

Where will it all end?

Richard Cropper, Windeatts, Kingsbridge, Devon

TRAINING GRIPES

Why is it that members of the Institute of Legal Executives (ILEX) are exempt from having to complete a training contract?

I am just about to complete my legal practice course (LPC) in June, having already obtained a law degree. I have been a designated caseworker for the Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) for the past three-and-a-half years and have worked for the CPS for 17 years.

We have been 'designated' by the Director of Public Prosecutions to prosecute non-contentious cases in the magistrates' court, and our advocacy training was assessed by the College of Law.

I appear at court every day, yet in June when I complete my LPC I must then start a training contract, whereas a colleague on the course, who is a member of ILEX, and has done no work other than criminal defence work, is fully qualified.

I appreciate that the training contract is designed so that you must carry out work in other fields, yet this does not seem to apply to ILEX members.

What is the basis of their exemption?

The CPS is crying out for staff at the moment and it seems unfair that I am unable to apply for one of the current lawyer vacancies.

Angela Rowan, CPS, Liverpool

TOOLS FOR THE JOB

I couldn't disagree more with Herpreet Kaur Kundi (see [2003] Gazette, 15 May, 16).

I would have liked to have had the skills I learnt at the Law Society's management course - team skills, delegation, how a solicitors' firm works as a business, the profitability of different ways of working - in my toolbox from day one of admission.

My only regret was that I had to wait until I was three years' qualified to gain this insight.

It was a massive eye-opener and has made me appreciate why things are done or done in certain ways.

Now I can see the bigger picture and so work more effectively.

Differing perceptions may depend on the course provider and tutor, but Ms Kundi's view seems blinkered.

She seems to feel that management issues do not concern her.

In my department (I can't comment for the whole firm), we all work together as a team to make it profitable, successful and an enjoyable place to work, as well as to provide the best service that we can to our clients in a cost-effective manner.

By doing that, we all gain motivation and take responsibility for our actions.

We are all accountable and it is in all our interests to see that the firm does well - not just the partners.

Surely these are qualities required of any employee, not just partners.

Gill Stevenson, Nelsons, Nottingham

SHOWCASING THE LAW

The recent successes of the Museum of Law and the National Centre for Citizenship and the Law, winner of this year's prestigious Gulbenkian Museum of the Year prize, highlights the importance of its work for the legal profession.

Since the galleries were founded 11 years ago they have been explaining to the public the vital role of the legal profession in our society.

Daily, visitors are told how the profession works and what it can do for them.

Schoolchildren play-act trials in our old courts.

The new Rizer Web site will contribute to national crime reduction, helping to tackle criminal behaviour among young people.

Our highly skilled educationalists intend to extend our programmes to other centres around the country.

At a time when solicitors are pressed with many problems in running their own firms, I can understand that what we are trying to do may seem remote.

But it is not.

The bulk of our fund raising has been outside the legal profession.

Yet in many ways we are one of its best promoters.

We wish the profession to recognise, as others now have, what we are doing.

I urge fellow solicitors to come and see our activities, look at our Web site, and give us their support.

We are a showcase for the profession.

Geoffrey Bond, deputy chairman, Galleries of Justice, Nottingham

HELP ON THE OUTSIDE

I was interested to read the article on drug-related offending and solutions to the problem by Paul Roach (see [2003] Gazette, 13 March, 14).

Many of the solutions put forward by Mr Roach are being addressed through the commissioning of drug treatment aftercare services for people leaving prison, but the problem is that there are still too few such services.

A lot more needs to be done within the criminal justice system and in the community to make a greater impact on reducing drug-related criminal behaviour.

The cost to society - an estimated 18 billion per year - is, as Mr Roach rightly states, too great to ignore.

The organisation Addaction is the leading provider of treatment services solely concerned with drug and alcohol problems in the country and has also been running prison rehabilitation programmes for some years.

We know that effective work undertaken within prisons such as cognitive behavioural therapy and the intensive therapeutic community programmes are undermined by the lack of aftercare.

Prison rehabilitation programmes offer a far better means for individual change than the unsupported withdrawal referred to by Mr Roach, which is a result of the habitual user not being able to access drugs on the inside.

But he is absolutely right when he argues for greater support for the individual leaving prison.

For example, individuals will often return to their previous locality and haunts.

Peer pressure to use again combined with the common difficulties faced by an ex-offender of finding employment, housing, and some measure of normality can quickly result in relapse.

Peter Martin, chief executive, Addaction

BRIEF SHOW OF METTLE

James Morton's article, 'Days beyond recall', (see [2003] Gazette, 22 May, 18) recalls to my mind the time, in the early 1970s, when I nearly became an articled bouncer.

One afternoon a scruffy gentleman, rather the worse for wear, shuffled into reception and asked to see Mr Buss.

(The firm with which I served my articles was Buss Stone & Co of Tunbridge Wells.) On being told that he had died in 1917, the intoxicologist demanded to see Mr Stone.

When told that Mr Stone didn't want to see him (client care wasn't such an issue then) the chap became a little over excited and, not knowing quite what else to do, the receptionist rang a then senior figure at the firm and was told by him, 'oh, get James to throw him out'.

Luckily for this cowardly lion, our friend decided that discretion was the better part of valour and sidled off before I could put in an intentionally belated appearance.

James D Jacoby, Penzance, Cornwall

GETTING SHIRTY

I spend time encouraging colts to look like cricketers, so they play like cricketers.

That includes having a smart appearance and not a shirt hanging out (see [2003] Gazette, 9 May, 30).

Can the Law Society provide similar encouragement for youth?

Richard White White & Sherwin, Croydon

THE CASE FOR NERO

Michael Burdett (see [2003] Gazette, 22 May, 16) is somewhat less than fair to Nero.

I doubt if the evidence against the emperor would justify a conviction - at least in our courts.

Tacitus was no friend of the Julio-Claudian dynasty, but not even he comes down firmly on the side of blaming Nero for the fire at Rome.

He suggests that Nero turned on the Christians to suppress the rumours that he was responsible - not because he actually was responsible.

After the fire Nero took pains with the disaster relief and introduced new fire safety regulations.

Nero has had an unfairly bad press, it seems to me.

Was it because he was immensely popular with the ordinary people of Rome but disliked by the senatorial class (who, on the whole, tended not to like any emperors and were the people who wrote the histories)?

Ian Kinloch, consultant, Wrexham

ETERNAL QUESTION

I have just received an enquiry from an estate agent asking: 'Who, if anyone, has a power of eternity?' Is this a proper protocol enquiry and what should I reply?

Ian Stewart, Herringtons, Eastbourne, East Sussex