So, Austin Lafferty (Letters, August 9) wishes the big, most successful, law firms, such as Dundas & Wilson "good luck", "in the commoditised end of Scots and supranational law". He then refers to "your readers", and the "more relevant point of how the profession serves them".

I welcome Scots firms competing internationally, but note that Mr Lafferty suggests only a few of our law firms are able to do so.

How about an analysis, Mr Lafferty, of how the legal profession in Scotland serves itself? In a truly enlightening statement, Mr Lafferty says the Law Society's chief executive, Douglas Mill's "priorities are to balance the interests of the whole legal profession, and, by statutory obligation, the whole of the Scottish public".

Can I, therefore, add to the public debate, and drop my pebble in the pond: let Douglas Mill reconcile some of his statements on public record with his statutory obligation. And what about the incredible treatment meted out to some members of the Scottish public who have made complaints to the Law Society about the actions of some of its members?

Perhaps they should consult a lawyer, but where can they find one who can act for them in Scotland and who is not a member of the Law Society of Scotland, and therefore subject to its regulatory and disciplinary regimen? They cannot even instruct an advocate without using a solicitor. If monopoly is by definition bad, then surely the present set-up within Scots law must be even worse.

If Tesco, or any other retailer, sells goods not fit for purpose, the customer can readily obtain appropriate recompense. Does the same hold true if they seek to purchase, but fail to receive, competent legal services in Scotland? Not only the retail provision, but the whole functioning of Scots law is now in the dock; put there by a public that has almost completely lost faith in its integrity.

If Scotland is to compete internationally, it needs an internationally competitive legal system. We don't appear to have that currently. Why not?

Bryan H Stuart, Pitmachie, Insch.

The Law Society of Scotland has let its standards slip. There should be much more than a "glass wall" between the clients of a law practice. At present multinational companies spread their workload around the large law practices. They, in turn, delegate this workload to the smaller firms.

The end result is that it can prove impossible to employ a lawyer who is not financially dependent on the company that you find yourself up against. Initially, you thought that you were up against an individual, but then you discover that it is the tentacles of their octopus holding company that has farmed out work to all the major law firms and their "associate" small firms that you are up against. This makes a mockery of our justice system. There has to be a limit to the number of law firms that one company is allowed to employ - otherwise we have no justice system.

Niall Barker, 5 Grosvenor Crescent, Glasgow.

Mike Dailly of Govan Law Centre (Letters, August 3) made some unfounded and inaccurate criticisms of Which? and its recent super-complaint to the Office of Fair Trading (OFT) regarding the structure of the Scottish legal profession. We provided evidence to the OFT that the current system is failing consumers, with lack of competition stifling innovation and resulting in higher prices and lower levels of service.

Mr Dailly claimed the complaint was both "reckless" and lacking in evidence, which is simply untrue. Which? does not take its powers lightly and, as such, carries out rigorous research and analysis before submitting a super-complaint. Indeed, the OFT itself said that Which? made such a strong case for reform that "taking no action is not an available option". The OFT has now made recommendations to the Scottish Executive and the legal professions in Scotland to lift the restrictions that could be causing harm to consumers.

As to Which? "overstating its authority", Mr Dailly again has his facts wrong. Which? is not only the largest consumer organisation in the UK, but also the largest in Europe and does indeed have more than 650,000 members. This includes more than 500,000 subscribers to Which? Magazine, which has a monthly readership of 1.63 million, and over 160,000 paid web subscribers. The figure of 10,500 ordinary members on our website refers to Which?

members who are eligible to vote on how the organisation is run.

Which? has been campaigning on behalf of consumers for 50 years and strongly believes that if the Scottish Executive implements the OFT's recommendations, Scottish consumers will reap the benefits of a more customer-focused legal profession.

Nick Stace, Director of Campaigns and Communications, Which?, 2 Marylebone Road, London.