The news has reached those members of the legal profession whose consciences permit them to do so that it is entirely legal to sue their staff for their uninsured losses following settlement by the Solicitors Indemnity Fund Ltd of a client's negligence claim.

There is, of course, nothing new about the principle that an employer can claim an indemnity from an employee in respect of losses suffered as a result of the employee's mistake.

The novelty is in the practice of the principle itself, a phenomenon which appears to date from 1985, being confined in the world of employment to firms in private practice in the legal profession and to firms of chartered surveyors.The practice has been rare for a variety of reasons.

Most employers have adequate insurance cover to meet claims without calling on the employee, union agreements usually prohibit such claims and further, it is quite simply considered bad for business or just plain bad form.

The reasoning goes that those who reap the profits of the business ought to bear the losses as well.

It is also unusual for an employee to have either the funds or the insurance cover to meet a claim, so the usual sanction applied is that of a warning or dismissal.The fact that such considerations have not deterred some firms of solicitors (albeit a minority) from taking their staff to court, including temporary staff such as locum solicitors and even secretaries, does nothing to enhance the reputation of the legal profession, already at an all time low.What has brought about the growth of this particular blight on the profession? The recession may be part of the reason although there have been recessions in the past without this effect.

Another factor might be a general loss of moral tone not peculiar to the legal profession which may have its roots in the materialism of the 1980s, as well as the fact that the availability of the practice has been actively communicated through the legal grapevine.The most important reason for the genesis of such claims, however, is the recent massive increase by the Solicitors Indemnity Fund Ltd of the deductible (insurance excess), which firms in private practice are now allowed to bear.

The maximum deductible was formerly £3000 but now, depending on the fee income of the firm concerned, it can be as high as £150,000.

It does not require a great feat of the imagination to see that faced with such insurance losses following a claim by a client, even firms which are not in serious financial trouble might be tempted to seek to recover these from their staff.I would like to turn next to the misery experienced by the victims of these claims.

I have no hesitation in admitting that I am one myself and I am therefore able to speak from experience.

They are subjected to correspondence, which is usually derogatory and contains a warning of legal action if money is not paid over.

From then onwards, the victim experiences the whole gamut of anxieties engendered by professional negligence litigation - apart from the damage to their self-esteem, there is the fear that the accusing firm will give a bad reference, thus endangering their livelihood together with fear of a court case if they do not pay up and which may result in unfortunate publicity and possible eventual bankruptcy.

The prospect of litigation hanging over them for six years from the date the cause of action accrued just adds to the intolerable stress.The Law Society's considered view (as expressed by the standards and guidance committee) appears to be that there are only a few such cases each year and since the intake of new entrants to the profession does not seem to be affected, there is no need for them to worry about the problem.

This is a cynical and self-serving attitude which not only callously ignores the suffering of the individual victims but also fails to take into account the understandable anxieties of the many thousands of solicitors and staff who are potential victims and entirely unprotected by any form of insurance cover.The Young Solicitors Group task force on this issue has suggested various strategies which were circulated in a press release on 21 June 1994.

Two of these are insurance cover for employed and locum solicitors and indemnity clauses in their contracts of service.

The disadvantages of these are the possible prohibitive expense of the first and the impracticality of the second - few employers will be impressed by a candidate who seeks indemnity before even having set foot in the office.

By far the best way of ensuring that this abhorrent practice is stopped is a change in employment law.The prime movers of such legislation should be our own professional body, the Law Society, which would thereby promote the sought-after image of a caring profession so far as the public were concerned as well as safeguarding the interests of the most vulnerable members of the profession, who would no longer have to work in a climate of anxiety and insecurity, but would be able properly to devote their talents and energ ies to the clients.

I therefore call on the Law Society to take steps to rectify the situation, not just for the sake of the interests of all legal staff but for the sake of the reputation of the profession as a whole.