Professor Paul Grout fundamentally misses the point in relation to the ownership of law firms by non-lawyers (see [2005] Gazette, 20 October, 12).

The fact that small legal practices owned by lawyers may be statistically more prone to dishonesty does not mean necessarily that large (or small) firms owned by non-lawyers would be more honest. It simply means that even in a well-regulated field, such as in the solicitors' profession, dishonesty and criminality may be difficult to prevent entirely.


One of the most important safeguards for the public, over and above any regulatory framework that may be imposed on the proposed multi-disciplinary partnerships, is that a solicitor who is convicted of dishonesty or serious breach of the professional practice rules stands the risk of losing his whole livelihood - for which he has trained for at least six years - and possibly his working career. In contrast, a non-lawyer/owner of a legal practice could the previous week have been clipping poodles or selling double glazing.


What would appear to the public to be a legal practice could be a marvellous front for dodgy or fraudulent businesses. The double-glazing salesman or poodle clipper, if caught, simply goes back to clipping poodles/ selling double-glazing, unless convicted of a criminal offence.


In contrast, the solicitor loses everything he has worked for, for many years and may become, effectively, unemployable.


Peter Jones, Smith Jones, Kenilworth, Warwickshire