*/
Criminal Bar Association members have voted overwhelmingly in favour of the Ministry of Justice ‘deal’ to defer cuts to the Advocates Graduated Fee Scheme (AGFS) and to suspend further action. In a controversial agreement struck with Bar leaders at the end of March, the Government agreed to defer the AGFS changes until summer 2015 in exchange for calling off the ‘no returns’ policy and future days of action: “This will allow us to take into account the outcomes of the reviews by Sir Bill Jeffrey and Sir Brian Leveson, as well as any impact on legal aid spend from falling crime rates, and earlier remuneration changes. In the same way, we will consider any impact from the above factors before introducing the second fee reduction for litigators.”
As a condition of the deal, the Bar Council and CBA made clear that there was no in principle objection to working on Very High Cost Cases at the new rates, and the Government pledged to continue to engage with the Bar leaders. The Lord Chancellor Chris Grayling stated: “I have always said that, given the current economic climate, I have no choice but to make savings, but that I also wanted to do what I could to ease their effects on lawyers. Hopefully [the] agreement proves that I am true to my word.”
However the decision – made in an emergency meeting of the CBA Executive – to accept the offer in its two-day window prompted “angry criticism” from barristers, chambers and solicitors that the full membership was not consulted and that the deal was “anti-solicitor”, effectively splitting apart the professions.
CBA Chair Nigel Lithman QC explained: “It was not practicable to ballot the Bar in the time frame. At the same time, the Circuits consulted or met with Heads of Chambers on their individual Circuits. The vote was overwhelming in favour from five of the Circuits, the Heads of Chambers on the South East Circuit who were informed were 100%.” He added: “We genuinely believed we could get you no better [deal].”
Calls for an extraordinary general meeting precipitated a full ballot of the CBA membership in April. An unprecedented turnout saw 1,878 votes cast: 1,249 voted to accept the deal and suspend further action (66.51%); whilst 629 (33.49%) voted to continue action until all cuts have been abandoned. Welcoming the mandate, Lithman said that this was the “first step” of a “long road ahead” and that the views of the one-third who “felt obvious misgivings about how the Bar would be impacted upon by cuts and dual contracts being imposed on solicitors… will not be ignored”.
“Whilst the CBA has naturally concentrated on removing the imminent threat of cuts to the junior Bar, it knows that this has to be seen within a broader context. We will thus now hope to reengage with solicitors and hold constructive talks. “The immediate task to hand is for the leadership to reunite the membership as we move forward in pursuit of an ever more secure criminal Bar.”
Bar Chairman Nicholas Lavender QC said the deal was “testament to the profession’s commitment to speaking with one voice in making sincere and evidence-based arguments, steeped in the public interest”.
“In the interests of building sustainable and high quality legal representation, we should take this opportunity to move forwards, by engaging with the reviews... resuming normal working relationships with our partners in the criminal justice system and calling off any further days of action.”
Criminal Law Solicitors Association Chair Bill Waddington expressed his disappointment at the deal, noting that the “more substantial” concessions to the Bar “may well reflect their unity and militancy”. Together with the London Criminal Courts Solicitors Assocation, it is coordinating a “fast moving, rolling programme” of direct action, including withdrawal days from Crown Courts. Having received “positive counsel”, they are also raising funds to challenge the Ministry’s handling of the legal aid cuts through judicial review.
However the decision – made in an emergency meeting of the CBA Executive – to accept the offer in its two-day window prompted “angry criticism” from barristers, chambers and solicitors that the full membership was not consulted and that the deal was “anti-solicitor”, effectively splitting apart the professions.
CBA Chair Nigel Lithman QC explained: “It was not practicable to ballot the Bar in the time frame. At the same time, the Circuits consulted or met with Heads of Chambers on their individual Circuits. The vote was overwhelming in favour from five of the Circuits, the Heads of Chambers on the South East Circuit who were informed were 100%.” He added: “We genuinely believed we could get you no better [deal].”
Calls for an extraordinary general meeting precipitated a full ballot of the CBA membership in April. An unprecedented turnout saw 1,878 votes cast: 1,249 voted to accept the deal and suspend further action (66.51%); whilst 629 (33.49%) voted to continue action until all cuts have been abandoned. Welcoming the mandate, Lithman said that this was the “first step” of a “long road ahead” and that the views of the one-third who “felt obvious misgivings about how the Bar would be impacted upon by cuts and dual contracts being imposed on solicitors… will not be ignored”.
“Whilst the CBA has naturally concentrated on removing the imminent threat of cuts to the junior Bar, it knows that this has to be seen within a broader context. We will thus now hope to reengage with solicitors and hold constructive talks. “The immediate task to hand is for the leadership to reunite the membership as we move forward in pursuit of an ever more secure criminal Bar.”
Bar Chairman Nicholas Lavender QC said the deal was “testament to the profession’s commitment to speaking with one voice in making sincere and evidence-based arguments, steeped in the public interest”.
“In the interests of building sustainable and high quality legal representation, we should take this opportunity to move forwards, by engaging with the reviews... resuming normal working relationships with our partners in the criminal justice system and calling off any further days of action.”
Criminal Law Solicitors Association Chair Bill Waddington expressed his disappointment at the deal, noting that the “more substantial” concessions to the Bar “may well reflect their unity and militancy”. Together with the London Criminal Courts Solicitors Assocation, it is coordinating a “fast moving, rolling programme” of direct action, including withdrawal days from Crown Courts. Having received “positive counsel”, they are also raising funds to challenge the Ministry’s handling of the legal aid cuts through judicial review.
Criminal Bar Association members have voted overwhelmingly in favour of the Ministry of Justice ‘deal’ to defer cuts to the Advocates Graduated Fee Scheme (AGFS) and to suspend further action. In a controversial agreement struck with Bar leaders at the end of March, the Government agreed to defer the AGFS changes until summer 2015 in exchange for calling off the ‘no returns’ policy and future days of action: “This will allow us to take into account the outcomes of the reviews by Sir Bill Jeffrey and Sir Brian Leveson, as well as any impact on legal aid spend from falling crime rates, and earlier remuneration changes. In the same way, we will consider any impact from the above factors before introducing the second fee reduction for litigators.”
As a condition of the deal, the Bar Council and CBA made clear that there was no in principle objection to working on Very High Cost Cases at the new rates, and the Government pledged to continue to engage with the Bar leaders. The Lord Chancellor Chris Grayling stated: “I have always said that, given the current economic climate, I have no choice but to make savings, but that I also wanted to do what I could to ease their effects on lawyers. Hopefully [the] agreement proves that I am true to my word.”
Sam Townend KC explains the Bar Council’s efforts towards ensuring a bright future for the profession
Giovanni D’Avola explores the issue of over-citation of unreported cases and the ‘added value’ elements of a law report
Louise Crush explores the key points and opportunities for tax efficiency
Westgate Wealth Management Ltd is a Partner Practice of FTSE 100 company St. James’s Place – one of the top UK Wealth Management firms. We offer a holistic service of distinct quality, integrity, and excellence with the aim to build a professional and valuable relationship with our clients, helping to provide them with security now, prosperity in the future and the highest standard of service in all of our dealings.
Is now the time to review your financial position, having reached a career milestone? asks Louise Crush
If you were to host a dinner party with 10 guests, and you asked them to explain what financial planning is and how it differs to financial advice, you’d receive 10 different answers. The variety of answers highlights the ongoing need to clarify and promote the value of financial planning.
On the 50th anniversary of the pub bombings, even now it is still unresolved. Chris Mullin, the journalist and former MP who led the campaign leading to the release of the Birmingham Six, looks back at events
One year on and the Court of Appeal fails to quash convictions after receiving evidence of racism in the jury room, and there are still no revisions to the Equal Treatment Bench Book , says Keir Monteith KC
Most of us like to think we would risk our career in order to meet our ethical obligations, so why have so many lawyers failed to hold the line? asks Flora Page
If your current practice environment is bringing you down, seek a new one. However daunting the change, it will be worth it, says Anon Barrister
A cultural life and times
