I write in defence of advocates representing mentally ill clients. I am concerned that your article promulgates the common perception that lawyers see mental health advocacy as an ‘easy ride’ in comparison with advocacy in other fields.

My colleagues and I have deliberately chosen this field in order to protect the rights of vulnerable clients at a time when they need most protection. We would rather use our skills and training to defend these people’s rights than work, for example, in the corporate arena. Those representing clients at mental health tribunals should be supported and encouraged in their work, not criticised for flawed advocacy.

In fact, many mental health lawyers are highly trained in the skill of advocacy and often have to practise the art of cross-examination in difficult circumstances extending far beyond the remit of the law. This also includes caseworkers who may not (yet) be qualified as lawyers, but are experienced in mental health law advocacy.

These advocates are knowledgeable about mental health law and experts at handling complex medical, social and practical issues in the context of a hearing.

The best of them assimilate all these matters into legal argument in order to achieve the best outcome for their client in relation to the Mental Health Act. They show that it is possible to produce sound legal argument on behalf of someone who may be of unsound mind.

Anne-Marie Elliott, Blavo and Co, London, WC1