The Gazette reported recently there was ‘no evidence that referral fees harm consumers’ according to an ‘economic analysis’.

The report focused on a link between referral fees, the cost of legal services and the level of ‘customer’ satisfaction. Of far greater significance is any effect of the referral fee market on a solicitor’s core duties to: uphold the rule of law and the proper administration of justice; act with integrity; not allow his/her independence to be compromised; and not behave in a way likely to diminish trust in the legal profession.

Any evidence that this market compromises the profession’s ability to meet those duties far outweighs the implications of an ‘economic analysis’. This is not a question of economics. We are not insurance brokers, bankers or car dealers. We are officers of the court tasked with upholding the rule of the law and performing a role fundamental to the administration of justice.

Questions about the price of our work, the satisfaction of individual ‘customers’ and the profits of those that trade in the misfortunes of others (in the personal injury field) must be secondary to those far more important issues I have highlighted and which are of vital concern to the whole of society. ‘It’s the economy stupid’ went the mantra of the Clinton administration. We should not be guided by the same considerations and allow economic concerns to dictate the character of the profession and undermine the core responsibilities of those that comprise it.

When reaching a decision, I hope the Legal Services Board is guided by the interests that matter most and not the economy (stupid).

Separately, the spurious genie in the bottle argument is rearing its illogical head once again. Is it really beyond the wit of the Solicitors Regulation Authority to re-impose a ban on referral fees and enforce it? Surely policing an outright ban would be easier than enforcing the current regulations. Even if not, the risk some may continue a harmful or undesirable practice once (and if) it is decided that practice is harmful or undesirable should not operate to justify declining to intervene to see that the activity is stopped.

Richard Edwards, E Rex Makin & Co, Liverpool