I recently returned to private practice after six years as in-house counsel for a company where legal work chiefly involved litigation.During my time in-house, work was sent to a number of City law firms, including those in the magic circle.

Without exception, all drafting by outside firms was of the highest quality.However, rarely did the client receive the same quality of strategic advice at the beginning of a claim.

At £375 per hour for partners in City firms, companies take for granted that the standard of drafting will be excellent.

So while the quality of this work was appreciated, it did not unduly impress.

What would impress would be the ability to obtain initial, first class legal advice of the strength of a claim (or defence) and a realistic assessment of the costs of the proceedings.Businessmen constantly make judgements as to whether the anticipated benefits of a transaction justify the costs.

In this respect a legal claim is like any other transaction.

However, solicitors are often apprehensive about givi ng advice on the strength of a claim (or defence) and the costs involved, particularly at the beginning when so much is unknown.

But the uncertainty over the strength of a claim and the cost involved merely adds to the businessman's need to be cautious when coming to a decision on whether to spend money on legal proceedings, drop the claim, or pursue some commercial remedy.In giving advice, it is the solicitor's duty to be equally cautious.

And if, as a result of that advice, the client decides not to proceed with the litigation, the right business decision has surely been made.

What is indefensible - and what all too often happens - is that, on the eve of trial, both the outside solicitors and counsel will become excessively pessimistic and put pressure on the client to settle on poor terms.In one case, on the verge of an inter partes hearing, I was suddenly told by magic circle solicitors, and counsel, that I should drop the ex parte injunction that had been obtained as the chances of holding it were minimal.

Leaving aside the fact that within 24 hours the case was settled on advantageous terms, from a business point of view the solicitor's conduct was unacceptable when we, the client, had already spent more than £80,000 on legal fees.

The prospects of the case did not suddenly change 180 degrees.

If the chances of successfully maintaining a freezing order were so poor, we should have been told this before we spent £80,000.A client appreciates being told the true cost of litigation at the beginning of a case.

If a client is given an accurate assessment at that stage, the solicitor has the comfort of knowing that there can be no argument over fees and that the bills will be paid.

If the client decides not to pursue the litigation, in the short term the solicitor will have lost the prospect of significant fees.

However, the client's trust in the lawyer will have been enhanced - which must be of more benefit in the medium to long term.The Woolf reforms are being blamed for a temporary downturn in the number of claims initiated, as litigants get to grips with the rules.

But surely the drop has been caused by the high cost of litigation set against the uncertainty of the result, and this may be the fault of solicitors.

There must be the same number of disputes arising, but they are not being resolved by litigation as previously.Returning to private practice, I am struck by the need for good litigation advice.

There are many clients who know they have a problem, and are prepared to spend the money to resolve it, but who are being poorly served by solicitors.Some solicitors take an excessively academic approach to problems when they need to be more practical.

Other take an unnecessarily aggressive approach aimed at bullying opponents into submission.

The only result is to run up excessively high legal costs and make the problem worse.

It is small wonder that businessmen are disenchanted by the litigation system.