I would like to draw attention to two statements:

'Many practitioners have raised concerns about the lack of choice of solicitors offered to clients bringing claims with the benefit of legal expenses insurance.

The Law Society is committed to the principle of consumer choice and is concerned that the narrow definition of proceedings on which the insurers base their right to refuse to permit the instruction of the solicitor of choice no longer reflects the reality of litigation and dispute resolution post Woolf.'

And: 'If you have legal expenses insurance...

you should contact the insurance company....

before choosing your own solicitor.

They may prefer to choose a solicitor to act for you.'

These statements show a divergent attitude to a growing problem.

One sets out a laudable statement for both the profession and the consumer, while the other presents the consumer with an apparent fait accompli.

What is surprising is that these quotes are taken from two recent Law Society publications.

The first is from its civil litigation newsletter Inside Track, of 18 February 2004, page 4, and the second is from the Law Society's 2003 publication Your guide to making a personal injury claim.

This is crucial battleground for the maintenance of an independent profession and unless we are united and consistent then the freedom of the public to choose their solicitor on trust, merit, reputation and convenience will be a thing of the past.

Sam Elsby, Elsbys, Hailsham, East Sussex