I refer to the leader column "Lord Irvine's climbdown" (The Lawyer, 1 February). Will you please stop using headlines that can only discourage the review of decisions that need to be changed?
Either Lord Irvine was originally right, but circumstances have justified a change of decision - praise him on both counts - or he was originally wrong, but has corrected his decision - applaud the latter decision while criticising the former.
On the facing page, you have a large ad for Alternative Dispute Resolution. Sorting out disputes means encouraging others to amend unfavourable views. When your opposite number agrees, do you say "Nah, nah, nah, nah, nah!", or do you appreciate the progress made and move on? Believe me, everyone reflects the concerns they have expressed. They do not want extra difficulties.
The legal system may or may not be ready on 26 April for the Woolf reforms. If not, do you not want those responsible to postpone implementation rather than be put off doing the right thing by the cries of "climbdown" that will no doubt be forthcoming?