With reference to David Enright's letter, I do not understand why his ‘equation’ for justice:

J = FP+EAOFT

is not simply expressed J = FP+EA+OFT ie the element ‘OFT’ (objectively fair tribunal) should be an addend not a denominator.

But I do not really understand the purpose of expressing this as a 'universal mathematical formula' in the first place: what advantage does this have over the simple assertion that justice is unlikely without an impartial tribunal operating in accordance with fair and transparent rules through reasonably able advocates?

Please may I also comment on Jerry Pearlman's letter in the same edition? While in principle I am all for solicitors garnering increased respect through a title in the same way as the medical professions in the UK, some of us with real doctorates might feel a bit put out if, after having gone through years of research and a 100,000-word thesis, we find that our fellow solicitors are getting the title gratis.

In Austria, and I think Germany, lawyers are known as ‘herr doktor’ from qualification, and those with a further doctorate as ‘herr doktor doktor’. I’d go with that.

Dr Robert Anthony, Moylgrove, Pembrokeshire