Talk, don't litigateMartin Cockx is taking a curious line in his stance over costs negotiators (see [2000] Gazette, 7 December, 20).

The vast majority of liability insurers now use this sort of service, whether he likes it or not.

By refusing to negotiate with such bodies, his firm is effectively cutting itself off from sorting out claims for costs without issuing proceedings.

This cannot be what he intended.Indeed, the whole attitude of Amelans on claims for costs is from a departed era.

Lord Woolf made it quite clear that the object of his reforms was that litigation should be a last resort, that there should be a dialogue between the parties to resolve disputes before resorting to the court process.

The new procedure for assessing pre-issue costs is no exception, as the senior costs judges recently made plain: part eight proceedings for assessment of costs should only be issued after a 'proper attempt to settle'.By insisting on a response within 14 days and refusing to deal with costs negotiators, Mr Cockx's firm appears to be embarking on an exercise which will merely generate further costs.

Of course, firms believe their claims for costs are reasonable, but experience suggests otherwise - in one case assessed recently, the time spent on the case was reduced by the district judge from 15 hours to six hours.

If Mr Cockx believes that defendants or costs negotiators are making unreasonably low offers on his cases - predominantly road traffic - then he should draw comparison with the fees allowed the Motor Accidents Solicitors Society's (MASS) RTA protocol pilot, agreed between representatives of MASS and the insurance industry.

I would urge other solicitors to be wary of following Mr Cockx's example.

If they have concerns about the conduct of costs negotiators on a particular case, by all means take those up with the insurers involved at senior level.

But as Lord Woolf firmly maintains, the secret is to talk, not litigate.Andrew Parker, president, Forum of Insurance Lawyers