Sir, - One of the tactics lawyers use to maintain their privileged position - whether they be practising lawyers, journalists, or TDs - is never to criticise each other in public. Only praise is heaped on colleagues. A judge, for example, has "a fine legal brain" (slightly above average intelligence); is "extremely able" (about average); or possibly "humane" (frankly quite stupid, but a decent chap).
A similar system exists to maintain current legal fees. Garret FitzGerald (Opinion, March 25th) treated us to a fine example of meretricious argument. Lawyers are not unique in having their fees controlled by an outside body. The private fees of doctors, for example, are set by the VHI or BUPA. Where they are unique is that an appeal against a particularly grotesque fee is made to - you guessed it - another lawyer, the bold Taxing Master. And if you're not happy with his decision you can make a further appeal to. . .er, well, actually, another bunch of lawyers - the High Court.
Open and accountable? I don't think so. - Yours, etc.,
John F. Walsh, Ballintemple, Cork.