I refer to the letter from Tim O'Sullivan of the Bournemouth and District Law Society. I agree with his view, and predict that alternative business structures may lead to a tidal wave of claims arising from misuse of client money and the use of ABS law firms as a front for scams.

The key issue is that, in the existing solicitors’ profession, there are high barriers to entry (it takes about six years to qualify plus a great deal of expense) and high exit costs in the event of disqualification (a ‘defrocked’ solicitor is unlikely to have another business to fall back on and would be unable to earn a living). In short, it is a long and expensive slog to get there and a disaster if you are forcibly excluded.

The huge majority of solicitors I have come across over the years are people of high integrity and a strong sense of duty. It goes with the territory and is inculcated throughout your professional career. People are rarely in it to make a fast buck.Contrast that with an individual wishing to set up an ABS. Of course, the vast majority of ABS entrepreneurs would be legal, decent, honest and truthful. But where they are not, entry into ownership of the new enlarged profession will be much quicker and easier, and the fear of exit much lower. The same ‘brakes’ on the undesirables will not exist. The rogues can go back to selling timeshares on the Costa del Sol.

It is clear nothing can now stop the ABS juggernaut. However, it would be fair on the public and the current profession to have two discrete compensation funds, so we would not be liable for the sins of our uninvited visitors. Moreover, the different status of the two types of law firm ought to be made clear to the public. The consumer could choose between the ‘safe and traditional’ and the ‘alternative’.

Peter Jones, managing partner, Smith Jones, Kenilworth