I refer to the recent letter from Hugh Barrett of the Legal Services Commission (‘Access is the number-one priority’, [2009] Gazette, 29 October, 11). His comments contrast with my experience at a local Family Justice Council meeting, where solicitors from two firms in a town some 12 miles away said they have used up their allocated matter starts for the current financial year, and have been informed by their account manager that no more will be given to them.

It was pointed out to the LSC representative that this would mean that existing clients, many with young children, who may already be involved in family proceedings, would have to travel to Nottingham via public transport, with those children in tow. This at a time when those clients are already weighed down with attending appointments with social workers, health visitors and so on. The response was much the same as Mr Barrett’s – the overall plan for the procurement area did not allow reallocation of matter starts from firms with spare capacity. Clients would have to travel or go without advice.How does that deliver access to justice for those clients? The provision of state-funded legal advice and representation should be guided by the principle of ensuring it is available to those who need it, when and where they need it, not by operational targets devised from data produced by the LSC, which has a poor record of accuracy in this respect. Our clients are human beings, not inanimate objects or units of production to be shipped from one factory to another according to inappropriately applied market theories.

Able, committed and experienced solicitors who have been in practice for 30 years or more have been telling the LSC and its predecessor this for about half of that time. Why won’t it listen?

Stephen Mannering, Gamston, Nottingham