Unleashed | The right to choose is sacred

The guy in reception was just another punter. He had a rather thick wedge of papers in his hand. He kept on saying "I'm being evicted - can you help?" We get quite a lot of those. My firm works for large numbers of tenants and they quite often pop in without an appointment.

The receptionist asked who he was seeing. He tried to blag it, saying that he had an appointment but he had not called in advance. Turning around he caught sight of our photo board which has pictures of all the solicitors working for us. "I'd rather like to see the old guy with the gray hair - he looks like he could help me."

Of course the old guy with the gray hair was me. Having a four day trial coming up I was unavailable, so the receptionist pointed at somebody else on the board. "Not a chance," said the punter, "she's so young I could be her father!" Eventually we managed to book him in with somebody appropriate for his needs.

With age comes wisdom and there is a perception among the public that the best lawyers are the old ones. This is not necessarily true. The fact is that law needs tenacity, enthusiasm, and an ability not to give up. Sometimes these are qualities which younger solicitors excel at.

Oddly enough that very same day another client came into reception without an appointment. "Who would you like to see?" asked our receptionist. "What," gasped the client, "I actually get a choice?" She seemed puzzled and not a little dazed that she could chose between the four solicitors that deal with matrimonial matters in the firm. Her story was rather a sad one. She had been ringing around solicitors unsuccessfully for over a week and had been unable to find anyone willing to take on her case. Her case was rather complex and she was not good at getting to the heart of her problem. But she was desperate, had problems with her children, her partner and the local authority. She was at her '¨wits end. She simply did not know where to turn. From her perspective her world '¨was collapsing around her. She needed '¨help badly.

She had tried the CAB and the local law centre, both of whom said they did not have the expertise. She had rung up 12 firms of solicitors all of whom had put forward a plethora of excuses not to see her.

Choice is a funny old business. As a species we like to have choice. We choose to shop in certain stores. I like Sainsbury's rather than the more highly priced Waitrose. We chose our dentist, doctor and optician. Few of us would go on a holiday which we had not chosen ourselves. Yet choice in relation to legal matters is gradually and relentlessly being eroded. A few years ago there were over 400 legal aid firms specialising in housing matters UK wide. That figure has dropped to 300. The government is currently proposing that the 1,700 criminal firms be reduced to just 400. How can this be?

Surely when faced with a long prison sentence or reputational damage of the worst possible kind it should be down to the client to choose who represents them? Why should some dull bureaucrat in Westminster determine who will speak to the jury in the Crown Court?

Choice has always been at the centre of the legal profession. I can choose which barrister will do my four-day trial for me. If I wanted I could do it myself. If I need an expert witness I have a choice. If I need to make enquiries about a defendant I have a choice of private investigators. Lawyers have always been a bunch of choosers.

We use our skills to choose the best for our clients. That's because we are good at making such choices. But the slash and burn tactics of the Ministry of Justice will not only reduce choice but will destroy a large part of the profession.

Punters won't be coming into reception choosing their lawyer any longer.

Last week a client came in who had chosen my firm because we have a dog. She explained that this humanizes the office and shows that as a firm we care. Which I suppose is true, but how much longer will clients have that choice?