Supplementary written evidence submitted
by the Media Lawyers Association
Following my letter to you of 25 January, and
the letter from Mark Thomson at Carter-Ruck of 26 February, I
have received a letter from another partner at Carter-Ruck, Nigel
Tait.
The reason we wrote the letter of 25 January was
because we were concerned that Mark Thomson's answer—"our
fee at the moment is £400 an hour, which is about the standard
rate in the industry"—could be understood by the Committee
as being their standard rate in all cases when, as Mark Thomson's
letter to you of 26 February clarifies, the rate of £400
an hour is Carter-Ruck's base rate in CFA cases.
Mr Tait is concerned that my letter to you alleges
that Mark Thomson was guilty of deliberately misleading the Select
Committee by giving a knowingly false answer. He asks us to withdraw
that allegation.
There was no intention on the part of the MLA
to suggest that Mark Thomson had deliberately misled the Select
Committee by giving a knowingly false answer and if our letter
has been read in that way then we withdraw that allegation.
March 2009
| 
