Letter: conflicted over conflict?

I was appalled, but not surprised, to read the piece by the Society's head of Professional Practice at Journal, December 2015, 42.

The response to the query about a practical solution to “clients” taking/expecting advice for free was typically bureaucratic, and indeed threatening, by implying guilt of conflict of interest. The greater part of the “answer” concentrated on the possible conflict of interest when advising a person with a likely ostensible (but not explicit) authority from “an existing client”. (This contrasts wonderfully with the advice I was given about one of my existing clients not being an existing client because he had not yet signed my terms of business in connection with a new matter on which he stated he intended to instruct me.)

In my opinion, when someone goes to another person in their place of business to obtain some of their stock in trade (in our profession, knowledge and experience, sold in units of time), it is understood by both sides that a price will be charged for that supply.

The “reply”, by focusing on regulation and ignoring the solicitor's interests, illustrates clearly the fact that the Society is always in a situation of conflict of interest. While being our statutory regulator, it also pretends to be our professional body representing our interests and, impliedly, fighting to protect these. It seems ironic that the Society is incapable of seeing this obvious conflict.