At what point does mutual good faith become blind faith?

At times over the past year before all hell broke loose, there was a voice at the back of my head saying "this is a bad idea". Other times, it was the savaging of damages left behind by others who got where I wish I am by possibly nothing more than sheer luck.

People have come and go, for better or for worse. I have always believed that such environment was fraught with dangers. This was even before I committed to this. I have anticipated all kinds of problems that would arise before 1 Nov but this was not one of it. No one really anticipated this. To an extent, this was anticipated and as such measures were put into place to avoid this consequence but the unforeseen delay and incompetence, so I have been told, contributed to this consequence that hundreds in the profession have found themselves in but the professional body has provided no assistance.

The professional press coverage of this is disappointing. The editorial is too lazy to present voice of those affected. It chooses to speak to an advisor for those affected instead. The rest of the profession not affected by this because their firms avoided it on the basis of size and the commercial viability that comes with it as a customer, has no interest and only utters a few words of sympathy, not camaraderie. Well, they don't have to be. It's like an entrepreneur turned FTSE CEO who doesn't have to care about the small FTSE-listed wannabes. But the difference is that certain areas of law are considered bread and butter while others can only command a certain level of fees on the lower end of the spectrum. So how is it that big firms seek someone passionate about law when the less profitable areas are clearly law as well, and if anything, the less commercial areas. Yet none of the big guys from the big firms have anything to say in public. (Whereas when it come to legal aid, many who don't practise in that area have a lot to say. Why? Barristers are vocal, and many of them make at least of their living out of it.)

Let's face it, a lot of lawyers out there are shit. They have no interest in keeping up to date; no interest in doing the right thing and shouldn't have qualified in the first place. But surely when insurance is a requirement, the regulator should have more teeth, through black letter regulations or soft power, to persuade the insurers with their commercial interest to do the right thing, rather than basing their models on legacy claims and not recent records. Well unless the regulator is dead set on putting small firms out of business (but surely this is not the case when it is pro-consumer rights an pro-competition). How exactly are insurers well place to assess risk when they have vested commercial interests? Who else are professionals meant to turn to if not their professional body?

No amount of venting will change this situation (unless someone gets a dime every time I vent). If all that can be done has been done, there is nothing else to do but to carry on and reassess at every turn.