LETTERS: Good advice and good value from solicitors
Your support helps us to tell the story
From reproductive rights to climate change to Big Tech, The Independent is on the ground when the story is developing. Whether it's investigating the financials of Elon Musk's pro-Trump PAC or producing our latest documentary, 'The A Word', which shines a light on the American women fighting for reproductive rights, we know how important it is to parse out the facts from the messaging.
At such a critical moment in US history, we need reporters on the ground. Your donation allows us to keep sending journalists to speak to both sides of the story.
The Independent is trusted by Americans across the entire political spectrum. And unlike many other quality news outlets, we choose not to lock Americans out of our reporting and analysis with paywalls. We believe quality journalism should be available to everyone, paid for by those who can afford it.
Your support makes all the difference.Sir: In his letter (9 October) Keith Richards of the Consumers' Association implies, wrongly, that the Law Society's angry response to the Which? article on the quality of solicitors' advice was simply the knee-jerk reaction of the solicitors' trade union.
The Law Society never disregards rigorous research into the service that solicitors give to their clients. Unfortunately, the Which? research was flawed and its attack on the profession unjustified. The solicitors' profession has as much right to defend itself against unwarranted attack as any other group in society.
Which? has already been forced to apologise to one firm of solicitors named in the report. Many of the other solicitors we have contacted have stated that Which? misrepresented the advice they gave and the context in which it was given. Also, despite what Mr Richards asserts, in one key area the Which? model advice was incorrect.
Sadly, the Which? article has undermined the previously good relationship between the Law Society and the Consumers' Association. Clearly, this is not good for consumers or the profession. A first step to resolving this situation would be for CA to be more frank about the limitations of its research. After all, no organisation is above criticism.
Yours sincerely,
Andrew Lockley
Director
Corporate and Regional Affairs
Law Society
London, WC2
9 October
Join our commenting forum
Join thought-provoking conversations, follow other Independent readers and see their replies
Comments