THE EDITOR, Sir:

I AM very much in support of your editorial this morning (November 20).

Prof. Vasciannie is very qualified for the post of Solicitor General in many fields, notably international law and constitutional law. The fact that he does not have a track record in the local courts should not be enough to offset his accomplish-ments and recognition in other fields.

First, because there is a very good staff of litigation lawyers in the Chambers, who can continue regular litigating while he works in those other areas.

Pure hypocrisy

Second, when a Solicitor General goes to court, he will usually be expounding on the law in cases of importance in the field of public law, not grilling witnesses in cases of alleged hospital negligence or police assault and so on (and one would not deny the importance of those cases, but they are really not of the level of significance that would lead the Solicitor General to go to court), so the absence of a track record of litigation will not take away from the thorough knowledge of the law, which Prof. Vasciannie and his team would be bringing to any case in which they appear.

That perceived drawback of no track record in litigation in the courts is a mere red herring. To use that as a reason not to appoint him is to be stunningly and embarrasingly full of ....er, hypocrisy.

I am, etc.,

Amused but getting increasingly cynical