Missing: one compensation culture, beloved of tabloid and middle-brow newspapers in search of copy everywhere - if found, preferably with examples of unbelievable or absurd claims that threaten the fabric of our society, please contact the editor of your favourite daily.

That the compensation culture is, according to the independent Better Regulation Task Force (see page 3), a myth, left the national press in something of a quandary last week.

Having talked the issue up as a major problem and an example of the disappearance of the old 'stiff upper lip' approach to life, many were unsure how to react when presented with evidence suggesting it did not exist.

The task force showed that the number of accident claims has started to fall and the costs to the UK are relatively low compared to other major economies.

To be fair to some sections of the press - at least, those that wrote about the report - they took it on the chin.

In a comment piece in the Evening Standard headed 'Compensation culture shock' - the shock presumably being that it does not actually exist - former city editor Anthony Hilton wrote: 'What this suggests is that the reason we all think people are suing more is because they appear to be, not because they are actually winning.

There is more noise now because of the claims farmers.'

He also pointed to the 'considerable irony' that 'those with genuine injuries who have a legitimate claim to compensation find it very hard to work the system'.

Whether all newspapers will now swap sides and champion the cause of claimants, or indeed stop attacking claimant lawyers as being on the make, is a moot point.

On the day the report came out, a Daily Mail leader (27 May) was sticking to its guns - one of the reasons Britain is facing an 'obesity time-bomb' is that 'even learning to swim is discouraged because of the lunacy of our compensation culture'.

The approach many papers took, including most broadsheets, was that while the compensation culture may be a myth, it is a costly myth nonetheless.

In an editorial headlined 'Litigation nation', the Financial Times (28 May) pointed to the task force's admission that 'handling compensation claims is costly, while fear of litigation induces excessive caution to avoid risk'.

The FT concluded that 'even if the compensation culture is an urban myth, it is an expensive one whose costs must be contained.'

Meanwhile, the reprieve for the QC system has left commentators, according to the Times, split over whether it is 'a fudge or a radical change' (1 June).

The Daily Telegraph and the Guardian both described Lord Falconer's announcement as a U-turn (27 May).

'The test will be how different the scheme is in practice,' the Times' legal editor Frances Gibb argued, quoting one 'cynical' solicitor who described the exercise as 'cosmetic'.

'The judges will still be consulted and the QCs will be the same people,' the source claimed.

The response from women solicitors and barristers was more upbeat.

Meanwhile, Ms Gibb suggested that the proposals were only a staging post - 'The QC award will see another day - but in the battle for the title, last week's decision was clearly only round one'.

The Daily Telegraph also quoted the Lord Chancellor's response on being asked why lawyers had been allowed to retain a royal badge of approval not available to other professions.

'I'm not under pressure for there to be Queen's Accountants, Queen's Structural Engineers or, indeed, Queen's Estate Agents,' he responded.

Given estate agents' rather dim view of the legal profession (see [2004] Gazette, 18 March, 13) and a recent Sunday Express property section (23 May) report on a survey that suggested 'lawyers offer the worst service of all the property professionals involved in the house-buying process', it may only be a matter of time before estate agents campaign for their own badge.

Philip Hoult