I know of a large number of senior criminal law practitioners (including myself) who have chosen to be employed rather than open their own firms in the past, so that they can concentrate on practising law in the courts rather than be burdened with the administration of a firm. They have now been made redundant with the Carter reforms being cited as the reason.


Once the link between the individual duty solicitor and the rota slots was broken, there was no need for partners to retain the services of the individual duty solicitor. And with the fixed-fee rates being squeezed, a major drive to cut costs should have been obvious.



Qualification as a duty solicitor was always cited as a mark of quality assurance, and peer review is now relied upon by the government as a future assurance of quality.



Appointment as a higher courts advocate was an extra qualification to be achieved by those solicitors who could demonstrate excellence in advocacy.



Therefore, if anyone in London or the south-east wants to employ a criminal defence solicitor with 21 years' post-qualification experience, duty solicitor status for the last 18 years, appointment as a Legal Services Commission independent peer reviewer and higher courts rights of audience, do not hesitate to contact me. Or does 'quality assurance' no longer matter?



Mitch Cohen, Loughton, Essex