This is the text of a letter sent to the President of the Law Society by the President of the Glasgow Bar Association last night.

Dear Mr. Ritchie

Esto Law Ltd

I am writing on behalf of the members of the Glasgow Bar Association to express our grave concerns about the formation of the above company.

As you are no doubt now aware, the Directors of the above company are drawn entirely from current or former members of the Legal Aid Negotiating Team (or their business partners).

It has been publicly stated that the Company intends to provide an "agency" service to solicitors throughout Scotland in relation to police station interviews and visits.

It is also now clear, that prior to the formation of this Company, that discussions took place between its principals and SLAB and the Law Society of Scotland.

Notwithstanding the representative or former representative capacity of five of the Company Directors no disclosure was made to the Profession either of these meetings or of the Director's intentions. Meanwhile negotiations on behalf of the Profession were simultaneously ongoing also with SLAB and involving at least some of the same individuals.

We consider it an extraordinary set of circumstances that whilst negotiations were ongoing between the Society and SLAB, that current and former members of the Legal Aid Negotiating Team were engaged in parallel discussions in relation to a commercial venture of their own.

It seems to us unarguable that in the midst of the most important Legal Aid negotiations in a generation that a commercial venture of this kind, comprised almost entirely of members or former members of the Society's Legal Aid Negotiating Team is wholly ill-conceived.

In our view a number of further questions arise.

1. Was the advice of the Society or any of its conveners sought inrelation to this venture?

2. Did any members or former members of LANT use information or access that they acquired as members, in setting up this company?

3. If so does the Society consider that such behaviour is appropriate?

4. In any event does the Society agree, that in principle and asidefrom the present circumstances, it is inappropriate for those exercising a representative role on behalf of the profession to use that position for commercial advantage?

5. The Company publicity states that through meetings with agencies which we understand to include the Law Society of Scotland that they have had confirmation that the service they offer complies with the regulations and the duty scheme. They offer to cover police duty for firms. Our understanding is that solicitors on the police duty scheme, as with the court duty scheme cannot delegate their duty to another agent (in this case Esto Law Ltd) and the duty must pass to the alternative duty solicitor on the list. With that in mind the duty scheme would appear to require to be changed if this Company is to be compliant? Are the Law Society of Scotland or members of its Negotiating Team aware if changes are to be made to the Duty Scheme ? If they are so aware when did this come to their attention? Further the Company also states that it is not in competition with any of the profession, however business that would otherwise be dealt with by the alternative duty solicitor will no longer go to them, with a financial gain to Esto Law Ltd.

6.When the Society was consulted did it consider whether it was appropriate for its Negotiating Team to be involved in a venture for commercial gain arising from the very regulations that they had negotiated on behalf of the Profession?

7. What type of legal entity is Esto Law Ltd. ? To provide legal services they surely require to be a firm of solicitors regulated by the Law Society and insured under the master policy. They do not appear to be a firm and the Registrar at the Law Society appears unaware of their existence. On what basis can they purport to offer Legal Services ?

At the first meeting of our new committee we resolved to seek to improve relations with both the Society and SLAB on the basis that the huge challenges facing the profession demanded a unified response. It is most unfortunate that immediately following upon a period where the Profession showed strength by standing together that an atmosphere of anger and mistrust has now been engendered and a perception that those who are meant to be representing, instead are self serving.

I am sure you will appreciate that the disquiet and uncertainty amongst court practitioners around this issue requires to be promptly addressed and their concerns fully answered.

Yours sincerely
Bernadette M Baxter
President
Glasgow Bar Association