Report comment

Am I the only one that feels affronted by the fact that solicitors didn't ask for the changes in the rules - and by that I mean the old rules - but that having been given the rules we adhered to them? We didn't bring in ATE and CFA agreements, but we got them and we worked with them. We didn't make nuisance cases so very complex and long-winded. We didn't make the fact that nuisance cases are so very much 'it's the principle' type of cases, so therefore the claimant and defendant generally are very involved and very close to the case and cling to their principles accordingly - and this means more work for the solicitor, more complexity etc. We don't walk out of our offices roping in unsuspecting members of the public and forcing them to use our services. No. We set out in black, white, red and many other colours what we are going to do, how much it will cost, what the likely outcome is and ask the claimant / defendant as to whether, in full knowledge of all that, they wish to instruct us. They don't have to. They could be litigants in person - we all know how much that's being pressed on us at the moment. But for something like this, would a litigant in person be able to avoid all the minefields? Solicitors study the law, understand the statutes, have the rules and regulations at our fingertips. We don't do that 'just because'. We do it so that we can offer the service to a consumer, we are in the service industry. If a plumber came round to your house and told you it would cost you £500 to have a repair done, you could say no, you could even have a go yourself. You have the choice - both with the plumber and the solicitor. But if the plumber gave you a price and you let him do the work and he did it well, he would expect to be paid what he asked for, and why not?

I am fed up with being told I'm fleecing people, I'm taking advantage of people, I'm asking to be paid exorbitant amounts of money. I am not. I am offering a service to consumers (god forbid I call them clients any more) using my expertise to help them achieve an end result that is acceptable to them at a cost that is clearly explained in our endless reams of information given to them at the outset, and is not out of proportion with the work done. I'd love some of the critics of the costs that we charge to actually sit alongside a working solicitor and actually see the work that goes into a matter; just dealing with compliance takes an age, but it has to be done. Are we to deal with compliance without being paid to do so? I think a lot of people would be astounded by the actual time taken to do much legal work. We're not picking tins of beans off shelves, we're considering issues, researching past case law, looking at statutes, considering the rules, considering mediation, considering outcome versus costs, etc. We can't do that in 6 minutes, it takes time to consider each aspect of the case and each case is different.

We didn't make the rules. We never do. But we have to continue to provide the same level of service and advice under whichever rules regime is in place, and do so very well in my opinion. Is it wrong that I would like to earn a living wage while doing so and also not be cast as the pantomime villain along the way?

Yes, I'm completely disillusioned with my career. Can you tell?