Nick Stace of Which? (Letters, August 10) says I have made "unfounded and inaccurate criticisms" of his organisation. He says so in temperate language which is in stark contrast to his "not for publication" heavy-handed letter to me.

Why did I say the Scottish legal profession super-complaint was reckless? Because neither Which? nor the OFT has produced any empirical evidence or research which shows significant harm to consumers in respect of the legal services market in Scotland. It's not just me who says this: both the Faculty of Advocates and the Law Society of Scotland have made this point. So I say to Mr Stace, show us your evidence. The independence of Scotland's legal profession survived the 1707 Acts of Union, so it can survive attempts by London-based bodies to impose English law solutions on Scotland.

Why entrust ownership of solicitor and advocates practices to banks and supermarkets? Multinationals have been scamming the British public for years. The Financial Services Authority has ample evidence of this. And the European Commission has repeatedly found UK banks and supermarkets to be engaged in major anti-competitive practices. By implication, Which? regards legal services as a tin of beans to be stacked, traded and sold. But duties to the court and professional ethics are not commodities.

Finally, Mr Stace claims Which? is the largest consumer organisation in Europe. That claim lacks credibility as it is based on Which? counting people who buy its magazine. Which? has 10,500 members who have a say in the running of their organisation, not 650,000. Using the "associate membership" criteria of Which?, one could argue that the largest consumer movement in Europe was viewers of Coronation Street. The Street has 10 million "associate members" so perhaps they should be consulted?

Mike Dailly, Principal Solicitor, Govan Law Centre.