Papers find lawyers still wary of limited liability

The Enron fallout continues to provide reams of copy for newspapers, with The Financial Times speculating on whether it would prompt more professional firms to limit their liability (20 May).

So far, it is the accountants who have made more use of the Limited Liability Partnership Act 2000 - with KLegal shortly to vote on whether it should follow its parent KPMG into LLP status - and the paper found there were logistical, cultural and competitive reasons dissuading other professionals from following suit.

Converting to LLP status can be costly and time-consuming, but the paper noted: 'The cost of conversion for a large or medium-sized organisation is generally about 1% of turnover - arguably a modest cost to protect partners' personal assets.'

Cultural considerations come from firms trading on their reputations for quality, meaning it would be 'inappropriate to limit liability'.

And being an LLP means a degree of financial disclosure that would be available to any non-LLP competitor.

The problem with law firms, David Hertzell, of City firm Davies Arnold Cooper told the paper, is that 'no one wants to be the guinea pig, and few claims exceed your professional indemnity limit'.

However, partnership law expert Richard Linsell of Mayer Brown Rowe & Maw - which is becoming an LLP - reckoned otherwise: 'All it does is protect innocent partners' personal assets from confiscation.'

But above all, Enron will probably cause more wait and see as the LLP model will now be tested by the US courts: both Andersen and one of the two law firms accused of being involved, Vinson & Elkins, are LLPs.

Meanwhile, the Daily Telegraph said Harriet Harman's role as Solicitor-General is 'beginning to raise eyebrows' after she referred to herself in a speech as a criminal justice system 'minister', rather than as a law officer (16 May).

'There is a subtle difference,' the paper argued.

'Ministers make policy, law officers take advice.' It noted a case the Court of Appeal was hearing last week that was referred by Ms Harman because she thought that a man convicted of assaulting his wife should not have been sentenced to community service.

The law officers were given powers to refer unduly lenient sentences in specific cases, it went on, 'not to appease women's groups or anyone else claiming that the courts do not take particular types of offence seriously enough'.

In the long term, the Telegraph suggested, such actions could damage the law officers' reputation for standing above the fray.

But the big story of the week was a party at Number 11 Downing Street to celebrate the 45th anniversary of human rights group Justice.

Marcel Berlins in his Guardian column (14 May) explained that as the great and the good of the legal world passed Number 10, the door opened to reveal the even greater footballing good being hosted by Tony Blair.

'"Oh my God," the judge next to me whispered.

"It's him.

It's Beckham." "And there's Sven-Goran," a leading peer of the realm pointed out excitedly.'

Mr Berlins showed discretion in not naming the 'famous QC who, on spotting David Seaman, cut short a conversation with some very high-ups and rushed down to get his autograph'.

But Joshua Rozenberg had no such qualms.

He revealed in his Telegraph law page (16 May) that it was Presiley Baxendale QC.

Neil Rose