The solicitors' profession has been quick to describe claims assessors as rip-off merchants who deliver a poor service.

Now the Lord Chancellor has set up a committee to investigate them.Claims assessors operate across a number of areas, particularly in personal injury and employment compensation cases.

They are unregulated, charge mostly on a contingency basis taking a fixed percentage from the client's damages, and increasingly compete with solicitors for business.

Lord Irvine's committee will report within six months, identifying whether there are genuine problems and if so, producing solutions.

The perspective is that of the consumer, and the committee's first task has been to assemble evidence of consumer abuse by the claims assessors industry.While there are some notorious examples, the scale of the problem remains uncertain.

That is not simply because the assessors' share of the market, though increasing, is relatively modest, but also because the consumer has no measure against which to judge the quality of the net result.

If the solicitors' profession has evidence of abuse, then it must produce it quickly.Securing compensation in injury damage and unfair dismissal cases is a significant activity for the solicitors' profession.

Lawyers undertaking this work are subject to rigorous qualification requirements and are heavily regulated.

They have to be insured and undertake regular up-to-date training.

They must also meet exacting client care standards and, most importantly, they are guided by professional rules which require them always to act in the best interests of the client.By contrast, claims assessors need have no formal training - let alone any continuing training - no insurance, and no regulatory or professional standards to meet and take what they want from the damages they recover.

Contingency fees in excess of 30% are normal.From a solicitors' practice perspective it is hardly a level playing field, but ought that to matter? In terms of consumer choice, the solicitors' profession should be such a good bet to secure the best result that nobody would use claims assessors.

But the public does use them, and although some individuals have been milked for every penny or compromised into accepting poor settlements, there is nothing to suggest that the lure of assessors is diminishing.

Why?The short answer is that the legal profession has itself to blame.

Not only are solicitors incredibly ineffective at trumpetin g their qualities but some of them constantly compromise the profession's potential by delivering client care standards well below acceptable levels.The fact is that to consumers the assessors appear to offer a service that is either no better or no worse than that provided by solicitors, and at least carries with it the certainty of fixed costs payable only when the money is there.Fortunately, the Lord Chancellor's committee recognises there is a need, at least, to define the standards the consumer is entitled to expect from whoever delivers compensation recovery services.

Consumers ought always to be guided to a quality service that delivers value for money.

Setting guidelines as to what consumers should expect from those who handle compensation claims and how these standards should be monitored will be an essential task for the committee.Once a level playing field has been established, if the profession wants to secure the market it will have to ensure its own quality standards and sell its achievements.

But other profound issues will have to be addressed.

For example, is it the case that the present structure of conditional fees with its various complexities hampers solicitor relations with consumers? If so, solicitors might have to grasp the issue of contingency fees once again.The experiment with conditional fees during the last three years shows the ethical concerns were invalid.

What if contingency fees are what is needed to secure serving the public's best interest of a quality service through the legal profession? With fees capped, the playing field would be level.

And it appears that to legislate against contingency fees as some propose will not only have an adverse impact on those solicitors who legitimately offer contingency fees in the pre-proceedings and tribunal environment, but also limit consumer choice.