LETTERS

Lawyers' Loot 'City Solicitor,' A. R. Jackson

Mr. Sukarno's Democracy Edmund Quek Scow Hong Liberal Extremism Noel Newsonie, Freda Cruickshank

The Lonely Ones Olga Bailey Catholics and Birth Control 'A Catholic Parent' The Anti-Apartheid Movement Rev. Nicolas Stacey

LAWYERS' LOOT

SIR,—Solicitors are not entitled to complain simply of the carrying on by Mr. Carter of a campaign. The existence of it may lead to self-examination which is beneficial. What is objectionable about Mr. Carter's compaign. however, is the use of the less pleasant kind of propaganda tricks—untruths, half-truths, the use of emotionally-coloured lan- guage, and so on. Perhaps a busy conveyancer, angered by Mr. Carter's latest effort, may comment on a few of them.

A man who buys a £4,000 house, says Mr. Carter, pays his solicitor £85. The clear implication here is that the solicitor's fee on the purchase of a £4,000 house is £85. This is a lie. Mr. Carter knows it is a lie. Mr. Carter argues (untruly) that the man who buys a £4,000 house is an artisan. Such a buyer will usually have a 90 per cent mortgage, if he can raise one. Very well, says Mr. Carter, let's add the purchase-and-mortage fee, omit all reference to the mortgage, and state flatly that the purchase of the £4,000 house results in the solicitor getting £85. If Mr. Carter supposes that the mort- gage only involves 'filling in a couple of printed forms,' and that the above process of thought is justified, he knows less about conveyancing than one had supposed. No mention, either, of regis- tration of title. In my firm's practice an unregistered title is becoming something of a rarity—and a good thing, too, for client and solicitor. Thus the mythical £85 becomes. on the purchase of a £4,000 house, £40-1 per cent of the price, and not much over one-third of what the estate agent charges.

Mr. Carter has 'saved' his members £2,000 in the same way that I 'save' myself a premium if I don't insure my house, or if I have 'Act-only' cover on my car. Mr. Carter and his outfit may or may not be worth suing if they make a mess of a house purchase. And unless Mr. Carter and his colleagues do virtually no other work, or are of superior calibre to the average solicitor (neither Possibilities which we may take seriously, perhaps), they will make mistakes. Mistakes in this business can be serious. Solicitors have arranged matters so that, if they are liable to compensate their client, that liability will be discharged. We contribute to a fund to ensure that this is so.

Mr. Carter's concern for morals is pretty good. He might take a few moments off to consider the morals of those who itidulgc in false propaganda to take away the livelihood of others. It is a down- right lie to suggest that 'the solicitor's clerk, and his typist, will earn £85 by a morning's work.' No- body Whose experience of conveyancing entitles him to write in public about it supposes that this is a true and honest statement.

I do not know, and nor does Mr, Carter, what proportion of conveyancing work is done by clerks. Mr. Carter implies that all of it is. In the firms of Which I have experience, the proportion done per- sonally by partners is surprisingly high. On the Whole it is well, painstakingly and carefully done. For Mr. Carter to suggest, as on several occasions he has, that it is merely filling in a few forms is preposterous and dishonest.

May I please examine Mr. Carter's pathetic little story about the row of houses? When I was married, says Mr. Carter, I could step into any one of these new houses for £5—or for nothing. One supposes, by the way, that someone paid the £2,000, though it does not appear. Nowadays, says Mr. Carter falsely, the purchase (no mention of the mortgage) of the £4,000 house means that the horny-handed son of toil has to work a month to pay his rapacious battening lawyer. Nonsense. He need not pay his lawyer sixpence. He can do the work himself.

Here, of course, is the point (and may I ask for- giveness in reaching it so slowly?). If you want to extend your house, you need not employ a builder. If you want to dive for buried treasure, you can make your own diving-suit. If you want to have a tooth extracted (if we may leave the NHS out of it), you can reach for the pliers. But if you want trained, careful, skilled assistance in doing any of these things, then you (individually or as a tax- payer) must pay for it. And why not? Are we to provide our care and skill for nothing? We did not get it for nothing.

I do a great deal of conveyancing. If there is any 'nation-wide resentment' at the costs, I would expect to hear about it. Apart from Mr. Carter's mouthings, it has still to reach me.

Lord Acton, your erudite readers will recall, re- marked that 'absolute power corrupts absolutely.' Mr. Carter's nasty little insinuation that all solicitors are absolutely corrupt may convince himself. If any- one of balanced judgment supposes that solicitors are, as a class, more corrupt than bakers, divers, local government officials, doctors or others (despite the formidable temptations to which their job ex- poses them), then I shall be very surprised.

'We do not mind' (says Mr. Carter graciously) 'professional people with professional instincts and professional incomes charging each other professional fees.' Very nice of him. The implica- tion, clearly is that Mr. Carter does mind professional men (not merely lawyers, it now seems) charging fees: and we may surmise that he thinks all professional fees are excessive. Does Mr. Carter have any conception of the work which professional men have put in to acquire their skills? Or of the hours they work, and care they take, to use their skills to pay rates, educate , their children, and do their duties to their neighbours? Or is Mr. Carter simply indulging in an unpleasant piece of spiteful and malicious denigration of a great profession?

'One class battens on another, and we think there is a great moral issue. I suggest that anyone who commits himself to that sort of thing is to be treated, as Mr. Carter is treated by my professional colleagues, with the most profound contempt. In- deed, I do not like Mr. Carter,

CITY SOLICITOR (Name and address supplied)