*/
Legal aid
Echoing the stance taken by the President of the Law Society, the Lord Chancellor, when giving his evidence on Transforming Legal Aid to the Justice Select Committee on 3 July, created clear blue water between price competitive tendering (PCT) and cuts to fees paid under criminal legal aid.
The cuts would be made to save money, whereas “the primary purpose” of PCT was not to save money, but to “deliver change which is sustainable”. Earlier letters exchanged with the Law Society had indicated that the Lord Chancellor was willing substantially to alter the PCT proposals set out in the consultation paper. Before his fellow MPs, he proclaimed that he had read some of the consultation responses, listened to views and decided that it was “the right thing to do” to try to devise a system that included choice. He expected there to be a revised proposal by September, which would be subject to a fresh consultation. In contrast, however, he could not alter the timetable for delivering reduction in costs, or “financial change”. The figure for reductions is 17.5%. This was not an occasion to question those figures.
Throughout, he demonstrated an appetite for scoring points off his critics. He foresaw no shortage of lawyers available for those wishing to tender. He deplored the idea of “advice deserts” (although committee members reminded him that they exist). He had resisted the call to adopt One Case One Fee (OCOF), which was administratively simple: “I decided I needed to protect the independent Bar. I didn’t do [OCOF] because I didn’t want to kill the Bar. I wish they’d recognise that.” He was sure that BME-owned firms had the “entrepreneurial spirit” to meet the challenges. He could see no need to expand the number of salaried advocates.
Speaking as a businessman, he thought firms which were conscious of their cash flow would prefer to use “expert freelancers” rather than to hire employees who needed to be “kept on, rain or shine”. He would thus “strengthen independent advocacy”. He claimed it was a “myth” that he was ignoring quality: “I am not going to accept bids from firms that cannot deliver the services.”
Peer review for “red flag cases” would be restored to 100% of firms. He was proposing choice and competition amongst solicitors’ firms – and after all, it was they who had insisted that that was the way to achieve quality. They would not be guaranteed an equal share of the work, but that was because they said that choice was more important. He had asked both sides of the profession to tell him what quality standards they wanted him to maintain: “You can write the quality portion of the contract.” Solicitors were willing to contribute here, but the Bar was not. He did not accept Steve Brine MP’s description of this as “the poachers writing the rules for the gamekeepers”.
While insisting that the Government had nothing to do with QASA, he said he was “puzzled” by barristers who were concerned that ill-equipped and ill-qualified people would deliver legal services and yet resisted quality standards in the profession. He did not think that paying the same fee for a plea as for a trial would create a danger of undue influence in providing a financial incentive for the lawyer to advise the client to plead guilty. Lawyers are “human beings”, said Gareth Johnson MP, who thought lawyers would be so tempted.
The Lord Chancellor did “not believe for a second any lawyer would persuade a defendant to plead guilty if he is not”, any more than he would persuade someone to plead not guilty at the moment because that would make the lawyer better off. The Chairman, Sir Alan Beith, suggested that the defendant might believe that was happening.
The Committee moved on to areas of the consultation which are less often covered. There was no turning back here, although the Lord Chancellor did not appear to persuade his questioners. In respect of civil legal aid, the Lord Chancellor declared that for “ideological” reasons he did not believe that prisoners should receive legal aid for anything other than matters relating to their sentence. Anything relating to their conditions could be dealt with by the complaints system and the Ombudsman.
Similarly, he defended the “residence” test for civil legal aid which would not apply to criminal work, inquests and those with refugee status. He said that he would look again at cases involving children under the age of 12, but: “I don’t believe British taxpayers should pay for Iraqi citizens to sue the British Government.” As for judicial review, he accepted that it should challenge “material decisions” made by public bodies but not cases which he thought were being brought as delaying or public relations tactics: “I am not going to pay lawyers for failure.”
The cuts would be made to save money, whereas “the primary purpose” of PCT was not to save money, but to “deliver change which is sustainable”. Earlier letters exchanged with the Law Society had indicated that the Lord Chancellor was willing substantially to alter the PCT proposals set out in the consultation paper. Before his fellow MPs, he proclaimed that he had read some of the consultation responses, listened to views and decided that it was “the right thing to do” to try to devise a system that included choice. He expected there to be a revised proposal by September, which would be subject to a fresh consultation. In contrast, however, he could not alter the timetable for delivering reduction in costs, or “financial change”. The figure for reductions is 17.5%. This was not an occasion to question those figures.
Throughout, he demonstrated an appetite for scoring points off his critics. He foresaw no shortage of lawyers available for those wishing to tender. He deplored the idea of “advice deserts” (although committee members reminded him that they exist). He had resisted the call to adopt One Case One Fee (OCOF), which was administratively simple: “I decided I needed to protect the independent Bar. I didn’t do [OCOF] because I didn’t want to kill the Bar. I wish they’d recognise that.” He was sure that BME-owned firms had the “entrepreneurial spirit” to meet the challenges. He could see no need to expand the number of salaried advocates.
Speaking as a businessman, he thought firms which were conscious of their cash flow would prefer to use “expert freelancers” rather than to hire employees who needed to be “kept on, rain or shine”. He would thus “strengthen independent advocacy”. He claimed it was a “myth” that he was ignoring quality: “I am not going to accept bids from firms that cannot deliver the services.”
Peer review for “red flag cases” would be restored to 100% of firms. He was proposing choice and competition amongst solicitors’ firms – and after all, it was they who had insisted that that was the way to achieve quality. They would not be guaranteed an equal share of the work, but that was because they said that choice was more important. He had asked both sides of the profession to tell him what quality standards they wanted him to maintain: “You can write the quality portion of the contract.” Solicitors were willing to contribute here, but the Bar was not. He did not accept Steve Brine MP’s description of this as “the poachers writing the rules for the gamekeepers”.
While insisting that the Government had nothing to do with QASA, he said he was “puzzled” by barristers who were concerned that ill-equipped and ill-qualified people would deliver legal services and yet resisted quality standards in the profession. He did not think that paying the same fee for a plea as for a trial would create a danger of undue influence in providing a financial incentive for the lawyer to advise the client to plead guilty. Lawyers are “human beings”, said Gareth Johnson MP, who thought lawyers would be so tempted.
The Lord Chancellor did “not believe for a second any lawyer would persuade a defendant to plead guilty if he is not”, any more than he would persuade someone to plead not guilty at the moment because that would make the lawyer better off. The Chairman, Sir Alan Beith, suggested that the defendant might believe that was happening.
The Committee moved on to areas of the consultation which are less often covered. There was no turning back here, although the Lord Chancellor did not appear to persuade his questioners. In respect of civil legal aid, the Lord Chancellor declared that for “ideological” reasons he did not believe that prisoners should receive legal aid for anything other than matters relating to their sentence. Anything relating to their conditions could be dealt with by the complaints system and the Ombudsman.
Similarly, he defended the “residence” test for civil legal aid which would not apply to criminal work, inquests and those with refugee status. He said that he would look again at cases involving children under the age of 12, but: “I don’t believe British taxpayers should pay for Iraqi citizens to sue the British Government.” As for judicial review, he accepted that it should challenge “material decisions” made by public bodies but not cases which he thought were being brought as delaying or public relations tactics: “I am not going to pay lawyers for failure.”
Legal aid
Echoing the stance taken by the President of the Law Society, the Lord Chancellor, when giving his evidence on Transforming Legal Aid to the Justice Select Committee on 3 July, created clear blue water between price competitive tendering (PCT) and cuts to fees paid under criminal legal aid.
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.
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
Creating advocacy opportunities for juniors is now the expectation but not always easy to put into effect. Tom Mitcheson KC distils developing best practice from the Patents Court initiative already bearing fruit
Sam Townend KC explains the Bar Council’s efforts towards ensuring a bright future for the profession
The long-running fee-paid judicial pensions saga continues. The current cut-off date for giving notice of election to join FPJPS is 31 March 2024, and that date now gives rise to a serious problem, warns HH John Platt