I do not think we can fault the reasoning behind the legal aid cuts, which largely preserve funding for the essential areas of human rights. We should be realistic and admit that some areas of law are not priorities, and one wonders why they were ever included in the scheme at all.

On the same day that the proposals were announced, I received a medical expert’s bill for £900 for a report in a criminal case which probably took a day at most, and a counsel’s fees estimate of £8,000 for a three-day housing trial. These rates, which legal aid is still funding, are much more than we can charge. No doubt they are perfectly reasonable for the level of expertise, but how can the Legal Services Commission pay them to one set of experts and pay much lower rates to us?

If the aim of the proposals is to reduce the ‘compensation culture’, this is unlikely to be achieved. The hourly rates and fixed-fee reduction means more pressure to work ‘efficiently’ by employing fewer staff, working longer hours, and coping with a situation where more people are fighting for the same work. Meanwhile, overheads increase. No one is suggesting taxes, rates and indemnity premiums are cut by 10%, so why should our income be cut?

Lawyers should be paid like GPs and given a lump of money to do the work. We would then choose what to fund and what not to fund. I am tempted to say the Law Society should take back control of legal aid. If it can do a better job, why not?

David Pickup, Pickup & Scott, Aylesbury, Bucks