Most of what the Law Society chief executive says in her column is correct - Lord Carter must conclude that the vast majority of criminal litigation solicitors provide an excellent service (see [2006] Gazette, 26 January, 16).

He must, at the same time, express wonder at how we survive on such low pay rates. He will also, it is hoped, have learned that the only way to improve costs in the criminal justice system (apart from charging many fewer people with offences) is to get all the agencies to address deficiencies in their systems; ensure proper training is given (for example, explain to police and customs officers what the disclosure rules are and how they work); make everyone in the system accountable; and see that costs are extracted from those who fail to comply with their obligations.


What is the point of the Criminal Procedure Rules if courts do not order costs against those who do not comply with their obligations without reasonable explanation? The current view appears to be that wasted costs orders are for use against defence solicitors alone.


But the column does not identify the high cost of practising certificates and the accreditation scheme - along with low salaries, long working hours, attack from the government and a lack of support from the Law Society - as reasons why so few become criminal law specialist solicitors.


The focus on making files look pretty rather than addressing whether or not a solicitor is giving good advice and representation is also frustrating.


The Law Society needs to engage with members to develop a system that ensures compliance with the conduct rules and public confidence in the efficiency of the criminal advocate.


Michael Robinson, Emmersons, Sunderland