The letter by Alex Cisneros (Disregard for justice, February 12) having a pop at Chris Grayling then goes on to state that  he is in real danger of going into the election without" having anything to boast about".

He doesn't need to boast about anything as his actions for his constituent over the years speak for themselves.

He did more in the first few months for the people when he became MP for Epsom than Archibald Hamilton had done in 20 years.

The letter mentions his cuts to legal aid which was to enable the most vulnerable and poorest people access to free legal aid and lower paid persons the ability to hire solicitors to fight their cause.

Unfortunately the greed of certain solicitors bumped up the individuals costs by sending out numerous letters and stretching out the time to get the person's case to court, which of course bumped up the costs even more.

I knew of certain solicitors that earned an extremely good income out of legal aid revenue alone (they are no longer in business).

Why do we need barristers just to spiel out rhetoric and stretch a case as long as possible?

I recall some years ago when the government were moving to dispense with barristers.

What happened there?

Mr Cisneros states that Mr Grayling is the first non lawyer to be in charge of our courts. At least he would not have been involved in the old boy network and would be able to see the whole law situation without being tainted by the system which has been in place forever.

We are fortunate to have an honest and hardworking MP who has done so much for his constituents.

It would take the whole of the Guardian paper to list them all. And as with any new assignment, he has had to learn as he gone along. It's a pity Mr Cisneros feels the need to have a pop at him as others have done because he has not followed the norm but has seen for himself the anomalies in various problematic situations.

Name and address supplied