Two things last week reminded me of that rumour. First of all there was the defeat of the tobacco litigants. Two law firms (Leigh Day and Irwin Mitchell) had bravely taken these cases on a no win, no fee basis, and were working side by side with American counterparts.
In the USA substantial progress has been made, with a huge compensation scheme being established and, only a few days before the English decision, one single plaintiff being awarded damages of tens of millions of dollars for injuries alleged to have been caused by tobacco.
Yet in this country the plaintiffs will not, in all probability, ever have a trial because a judge has ruled that most of the claims are statute barred. He relied on the Limitation Act 1980 which must now be regarded as a defendant's charter. The pattern has become familiar: plaintiffs suspect that a particular product has caused them injury. Manufacturers and governments say it is nonsense. A preliminary trial takes place on limitation, and judge finds that plaintiffs must have had the requisite knowledge (more than three prior to starting proceedings) of the act or omission which is alleged to constitute negligence. Judge also orders plaintiffs to pay costs. Defendants then strike a deal with plaintiffs' solicitors that no costs will be paid so long as they do not take on any similar cases for a very long time. RIP tobacco litigation UK.
You may think that those who are injured by tobacco deserve what they get: there are all those health warnings, and the statistics have been around for years.
Yes but.... (and here I have to show my hand. I hate tobacco smoke, have never smoked a cigarette in my life and I object strenuously when others do in my presence but - or even butt....) .... if you are actively marketing a product which is shown statistically to account for 50% of deaths from lung cancer, and you know it, then even though your customers know it too, you are not absolved from liability.
So isn't it convenient for a court to find that the plaintiffs had the requisite knowledge more than 3 years before they started proceedings? It stops the litigation. It denies justice (because no trial means no decision on merits), and the system is not even put to the test.
Which brings me to the other event: the death of the great, enigmatic, no doubt infuriating, undoubtedly contradictory Lord Denning. I don't know whether, had he been looking at the tobacco litigation as Master of the Rolls, he would have decided differently. I suspect he would have done, because I like to think that he would have allowed the cases to go to trial. He had the knack of looking at the problem, then deciding on how the law could be made to tackle it. In doing so, he no doubt bent the rules and introduced new meanings of words to forge his views, but so what? With Denning there was a feeling that his law was relevant to the achievement of justice.
The tobacco litigation may or may not be a one-off event. On the whole it is not my perception (and I expect hundreds of vigilant Solicitors Journal readers to write in to contradict me) that in the last few years there have been any significant UK court decisions which have favoured the small guy against big business or government.
The "Brits" are looked on, far too much, as easy prey. Take other items in the news last week. The Sunday Times records that investors are being "fleeced" by finance companies to the tune of hundreds of millions of pounds a year and that we pay far higher rates of interest on our credit cards than those in other countries. In the same issue a trading standards officer who showed up a bank for making mistakes received with a prison sentence for his pains. I am sure that other vigilant SJ readers will be able to identify a criminal action in what he did, but I am afraid I could not see it. I feel sure that Lord Denning would have admired his tactics.
And earlier in the week BBC Watchdog highlighted once again the absurdity that we pay thousands of pounds more for cars than our European counterparts, with plenty of impediment in the way for those who try to get round the system.
So, where is all this moaning getting us? If it is true that governments and big businesses no longer have our best interests at heart and are out to exploit us, then who is there left to stand between right and wrong?
The very short answer is: you. We still have an independent legal system, though it may not be working well. The last best hope of many private individuals is in the people they love to despise most of all: us - the solicitors.
The one consistent thing I have learned in my 25 years in the law is that almost without exception solicitors are honest, caring and fearless when representing their clients. I think nowadays we are all a little demoralised and perplexed by the plethora of changes imposed on us and by the overwhelming obstructions which are put in our paths.
We are not alone. Reflect on the momentous issues facing Robin Cook at the moment. He's up to his elbows in bananas wars, in a dispute which could rival the War of Jenkins Ear and the Boston Tea Party in the silly name stakes. Does he, as he faces Madeleine Albright across the negotiating table say: "Yes, we have no bananas", or sing the Banana Boat Song under his breath?
But what we must do is to fight for the rights of ordinary people each in our own spheres of activity - or we will just go bananas.

This article first appeared in Solicitors Journal March 1999