LETTERS TO THE EDITOR

CONFLICTING VIEWS

Those who believe that the invasion of Iraq, a sovereign state, can be legitimised by an opinion from Lord Goldsmith, a government lawyer, are at best pretty nave (see [2003] Gazette, 20 March, 4).

In 1956, the Eden government justified its unlawful attack on Egypt on advice from the Lord Chancellor, Lord Kilmuir.

In 1998, the Defence Secretary, Geoff Hoon (another lawyer) justified to Parliament NATO's unlawful use of cluster bombs in Serbia on the basis of 'carefully considered legal advice', a parliamentary exchange that still turns my stomach.

Throughout this period, the US has disregarded decisions of the World Court which did not suit it (for example, on the mining of Nicaraguan ports); it has consistently used its veto on the UN Security Council to protect Israel; its Defence Secretary Donald Rumsfeld proposes to sidestep the provisions of the Chemical Weapons Convention ( to which the US is a party) as inconvenient; and both the UK and the US now choose to act in defiance of a veto by permanent members of the security council, where exercise of that veto is deemed 'unreasonable'.

I agree with Louise Christian (see [2003] Gazette, 20 March, 19) that passage of a second resolution by the security council would not in fact have justified attacking Iraq.

But had one been passed, the US and UK governments might have had at least a shout.

Both recognised its necessity, only to abandon it when it became clear that they could not even command a clear majority on the council, let alone dissuade use of the veto.

Their brass-neck is breathtaking.

I hope that all opponents of this war will not now abandon their active opposition on the absurd basis - put forward by some faint hearts - that 'now we've started, let's finish the job quickly'.

This is an unlawful attack on a sovereign state, just as Iraq's attack on Kuwait was in 1990.

The crime does not become any less objectionable by its partial commission.

The best way to end the war is to stop it and bring the troops home now.

Myles Hickey, Dowse & Co, London

WAKE-UP CALL

I know not whether to laugh or lament over the present state of the legal aid system.

My firm has operated six legal aid contracts since April 2000, three of which are in the social categories of welfare, debt and housing, and has received referrals both from local law firms and the overstretched local citizens advice bureaux.

Year on year, the 45 per hour social welfare department has underperformed financially, being barely able to cover the salaries of the people working in it, let alone contributing to its share of the rest of the overheads - and profit remains an elusive beast.

This January, the dedicated and overworked solicitor running the department resigned, weary of the impossible struggle to hit realistic costs targets rendered unattainable by the insulting hourly rate.

There were now three options: to be financially prudent and shut the department; to run the department with the lowest grade of fee-earner we could find, the office cat perhaps (properly inducted and supervised, of course); and to advertise for an experienced and dedicated replacement supervisor.

We chose the latter option, but after extensive advertising the only candidate experienced enough to satisfy the supervisor standards wanted a salary such that he would have been working from January to September to cover his own salary and then from October to December to cover that of his secretary.

So it was the first option, and our social welfare department closes its doors on 28 March.

It is a pity that the people of North Staffordshire have lost one of the main sources of legal aid funded advice in social welfare law, (and I would like to thank all those citizens advice bureaux and local firms who referred clients to that department over the past four years); and it is a pity that the present Lord Chancellor will not wake up and smell the roses, because they are starting to rot.

Stephen Brookes, Salmons, Stoke-on-Trent

PLAIN SPEAKING

Lawyers speaking in plain English? Whatever next? In all seriousness, how welcome to see the Law Society's client care charter backing the case for clear information and plain speaking.

It is testimony to the changing times that the Society, and its members, recognise this and are even prepared to see an increase in complaints to make things easier for clients in the long term.

The stereotypical picture of solicitors still portrays us as intimidating and not particularly client friendly.

This charter effectively acknowledges this and seeks to address the problem and make firms more aware of the impact that poor communication has.

The fact that hundreds of firms have written requesting further copies of the charter is evidence that lawyers at the sharp end recognise the need for change.

Being accessible, friendly and easy to understand does not mean trivialising the law.

If anything it treats the law with greater respect because it is made more comprehensible and less mysterious.

It is not so much 'dumbing down' as 'tuning up'.

Ian Hopkins, managing partner, Leo Abse & Cohen, Cardiff

Contributions

The Editor welcomes letters and contributions for the Comment column.

Shorter letters (max 250 words) have a much better chance of publication.

All letters, including e-mails, must include a full postal address and practice details.

They should be sent to the Editor, the Law Society's Gazette, 6th Floor, Newspaper House, 8-16 Great New Street, London EC4A 3BN; LDE 100; fax 020 7831 0869.

E-mail your letters to jonathan.ames@lawsociety.org.uk