Legal ­ but not decent, honest and truthful

Solicitors are perceived as "predatory" and "on the make", according to yet more lawyer-knocking research published last week. While the conclusions may not surprise many people, the fact that the study was commissioned by a former president of the Law Society, probably will. Rodger Pannone, a director of Legal Marketing Services, the UK's largest independent network of solicitors, says what he found "highlights the fear the general public has of the legal profession."

He adds: "As a solicitor myself obviously I'm not delighted to be viewed as predatory. But, in part, we in the legal profession have only ourselves to blame ­ we have held ourselves aloof and now we are paying the penalty."

When a lawyer of Mr Pannone's standing makes such an admission the profession must take notice. After all, this isn't an example of another round of government-sponsored lawyer-bashing or even research commissioned by accountants who have set out to undermine competition from the legal profession.

The Pannone study also differs from previous work in that it relies on focus groups, rather than raw data responses, to get to the heart of the public's unease about lawyers. The study was conducted in groups of 10 people in Bristol and Oldham of men and women aged from 18-50 and all in employment.

A common theme was that instructing a lawyer was now viewed as a "distress purchase" while "litigation" was a word negatively associated with America. Those interviewed most feared delays, poor communication and not being in control of the relationship with their lawyer.

The LMS study places Mr Pannone at odds with the Law Society. Its current president, Michael Napier, comments: "Limited research like this can easily be used to attack lawyers as a soft target. The actions of a few are not typical of the vast majority of solicitors who help people solve their problems, confirmed by more extensive research that recently revealed 83 per cent of clients rated their solicitors as good or very good."

Those taking part in the Pannone research, mainly office workers and trades people, were also critical of the Government's reform of "no win, no fee", believing that the service came with hidden costs.

Mr Pannone, senior partner of Pannone & Partners in Manchester, believes that some of the "no win, no fee" schemes have proved "contentious" because losing plaintiffs had to pay charges while winning plaintiffs' awards were often swallowed up by legal fees and insurance premiums.

Soon the Court of Appeal will settle the thorny issue of whether the winning side can recover from the losing party the cost of the pre-litigation insurance premium. This has been holding back conditional fee agreements and preventing lawyers from claiming that "no win, no fee" will cost the client nothing at all.

A study conducted at the University of Westminster found that solicitors were using reform on "access to justice" to overcharge clients. The researchers uncovered evidence of solicitors using "no win, no fee" schemes to underestimate a client's chances of winning so they could charge more. The study, part-funded by the Lord Chancellor's Department, said the new "conditional fee contracts" are based on an inherent "conflict of interest" where solicitors are encouraged to overestimate risks so they can justify high "success fees".

The research into 197 conditional fee agreements ­ "no win, no fee" cases ­ found that solicitors took an average 15 per cent of the winning client's damages in success fees and other payments.

Stella Yarrow, the author, said there was "no set method for calculating this element" in the agreements, which meant it was difficult for the client to come to an "independent view on whether it is based on reasonable assumptions".

She added: "Solicitors have a financial interest in being over-cautious in their estimates, and clients are unable to assess whether the percentage is reasonable."

Mr Pannone has his own reasons for wanting to reassure the public that not all lawyers are the same. His company operates its own "no win, no fee" scheme on behalf of the law firms in the LMS network. He says of the research findings: "This negative reaction is why we have devised 121 Legals ­ a service where the public need only meet a solicitor if they want to, but still have access to experts ­ for free. And we invite people to scrutinise our claims, because they do stand up."