Lawyers continue to profit from professional rugby union. As Bath look into the alleged ear-biting incident which marred their Tetley Bitter Cup tie against London Scottish last week, threats of legal action echo their way along the M4.

Following the injury to their flanker Simon Fenn, Scottish cited the Bath front row: Kevin Yates, Federico Mendez and Victor Ubogu. At least two of them had to be innocent and all three have denied being the culprit.

Ubogu said he was considering taking action against Bath for defamation of character. "I was horrified that London Scottish cited me," said Ubogu. "It was totally unjustified. I am delighted Federico and I have been exonerated but I have had to take legal advice and I will now consider whether to take the matter further. I have a business to run and my name is my passport."

The Argentina hooker Mendez has also denied biting Fenn, but whereas Scottish have removed Ubogu's name from their citation to the Rugby Football Union, that of Mendez remains.

Yates, who has been suspended on full pay by Bath, has vowed to clear his name and he is consulting a solicitor. The legal system is adversarial, and where there is one opinion, a contrary one is not far away.

Victor Ubogu: The England prop has little chance in succeeding with an action against London Scottish for defamation of character, says Tom Usher, a sports lawyer with the London firm S J Berwin & Co.

"I would not advise him to sue. A citation is not an allegation that a player is guilty of committing an act of foul play. It is like being questioned by the police: it does not presume guilt and I do not see that his reputation has been harmed."

Sam Simon, the president of Pontypridd, a member of the Welsh Rugby Union's general committee and a solicitor in Cardiff, disagreed. "I think Ubogu has a very strong case. London Scottish cited three players knowing that at least two of them could not be guilty. They themselves should have taken legal advice before naming names.

"If I was advising Ubogu, I would tell him to sue for substantial damages. He is a businessman and his reputation is very important to him.

Federico Mendez: Usher said the Argentinian fell into the same category as Ubogu.

"No one is saying that he did it. It is up to a tribunal to determine the guilt or innocence of a player, considering the evidence that is put before it."

Simon's advice to Mendez would be to sue Scottish. "He may not be a businessman like Ubogu, but he is an international rugby player whose contract with Bath expires in six months and who may want to pursue his career abroad. An unfounded reputation as an ear-biter, and let's face it this is an abhorrent incident which should earn the perpetrator a life ban, could harm his chances of finding another club."

Kevin Yates: Usher believes that while Yates does not have a case against Scottish, there may be grounds for taking action against Bath. "He has been suspended on full pay and, at the moment, his is maintaining his place in the England squad.

"Should his innocence be established, and should he prove that his suspension cost him financially, he would have grounds to sue for loss of earnings. This falls in the realms of employment law." Simon contends that Yates has grounds to sue both Scottish and Bath. "What are the facts of this affair?

"The essential one is that Simon Fenn suffered a serious ear injury. It has yet to be established by medical experts that the injury resulted from a bite, though the evidence seems to point to that.

"It has not been established that any one of the Bath players on the field at that time was responsible, let alone which one. It is highly unlikely that a Scottish player was responsible, but there have been many incidents on a rugby field where a player was injured by one of his colleagues.

"Until facts have been established, and that is a job for a properly assembled panel, not the aggrieved club, it is wrong to assume anyone's guilt unless the culprit confesses.