*/
Duncan McCombe and Sam Roake reveal the grim reality, as a young Bar survey shows 50% of criminal juniors are working for free. Doing nothing is not an option and a solution must be found, they argue
Ask a group of junior criminal barristers if they’ve ever taken a magistrates’ court (MC) brief on the understanding that they would receive no fee whatsoever, and half will tell you yes, they have.
That’s the grim truth as revealed by the recent survey carried out by the Young Barristers’ Committee (YBC). With 1 in 4 eligible junior barristers (those in the first seven years of practice and specialising in crime) completing the survey, there is now a firm evidence base to back up what has been known anecdotally for a long time.
Unpaid fees aside, on the occasions where a fee is paid, the situation is also bleak. The majority told us (64%) that MC fees are paid on average somewhere between 1-6 months after the hearing. Twenty-four per cent said the delay was 6-12 months. Ten per cent described having to wait more than a year.
This is despite the fact that the Legal Aid Contract which solicitors sign with the Legal Aid Agency (LAA) requires counsel’s fees to be paid within 30 days (clause 3.3(b)(i)). Less than 2% of respondents were paid in that time on average.
Whose fault are these lengthy delays? 70% blamed instructing solicitors; 10% said it was the LAA; and only 2% pointed the finger at clerks or chambers (8% weren’t sure).
Sixty per cent of respondents had raised concerns in chambers, despite the obvious professional risks involved. The results, they said, were disappointing. While a tiny minority had experienced positive change (whether through fees being successfully chased or chambers no longer taking instructions from that firm), most said that nothing had changed at all.
Most were given short shrift: ‘That’s life at the Bar!’... ‘It’s part of the job!’ were examples of replies respondents had received from chambers. Another was told ‘Shut it if you want Crown court work!’; others told a similar (and familiar) story of chambers wanting to keep solicitors on-side so bigger, juicier briefs could be brought in. Another, during pupillage, was even reprimanded for raising concerns.
So, while most respondents blamed solicitors for payment delays, many of those individuals also described clerks and chambers as being complicit in the situation. Aside from the clear moral wrong of exploiting junior barristers, this raises regulatory concerns: in particular the requirement (Bar Standards Board Handbook rc110i) to treat all members of chambers in a fair and equitable manner, and the issue of referral fees.
This, along with other factors, is having a devastating impact on the young Bar. As one respondent said when asked what was done after he/she had raised concerns about the payment of MC fees: ‘Not a lot. Now on secondment trying to find a way out of the profession. Can’t afford to live. Very disheartened about the whole career at this stage – working for basic minimum wage.’ No wonder the number of barristers under five years’ Call has fallen by 30% between 2005 and 2015 (practising certificate figures for the Bar, January 2017).
Some action has been taken over the years. In 2002 the Bar Council agreed a protocol with the London Criminal Courts Solicitors’ Association concerning the payment of MC fees. This was updated in 2008 and can be found here: bit.ly/2h7zjIi. The protocol, although voluntary, sets out minimum rates for MC work (£50 for first appearances, remands, bail applications, sentences and adjourned trials; £75 for a half-day trial; and £150 for a full-day trial) and states that fees should be paid within 30 days of invoice. The new protocol was accompanied by a letter from the then Chairman of the Bar, Timothy Dutton QC, to the profession emphasising that these were minimum rates, and drawing attention to the relevant regulatory requirements for chambers (now under the BSB Handbook rc110i) and the serious potential consequences of breaching them. Yet, almost ten years on, the problem persists.
Like those 50% of criminal juniors working for free, readers are probably wondering what the solution might be.
It is clear that the current protocol is not working. If you didn’t realise it existed, you’re not alone – 43% of respondents didn’t either. The fee levels haven’t changed since 2008, not even adjusted for inflation, and will rightly be seen as derisory by many. Some of the fees received by respondents fell below even these levels and – of course – sometimes a fee won’t be received at all.
While a new protocol, or wider knowledge of the current protocol, may help at the periphery, we do not think that it is a long-term solution to the problem. The YBC’s view is that the answer is more likely to lie in the modernisation of how counsel’s fees are paid for MC work. In a criminal justice system where there is a general drive towards digitisation, and in which Crown court fees are a) set at fixed levels and b) paid directly to counsel, doesn’t the mode of payment in the lower courts look like something of a relic, and an unfair one at that? (Would anyone redesigning a system for payment now structure it as it is?)
It is the YBC’s view that a new system is needed where fee levels for all the various hearings are fixed (and kept under review) and paid directly to the advocate.
We have had various meetings with the LAA, the Remuneration Committee at the Bar Council and solicitors. No one has raised any objections of principle to such a scheme. Most of the objections appear to be simply that nothing will change and therefore that it is not worth trying. We could not disagree more. This is a serious and long-term problem which is undermining the viability of the profession as a whole. The LAA indicated to us that a change, although potentially difficult, is ‘not beyond the wit of man’. As has been shown with the proposed AGFS (Advocates’ Graduated Fee Scheme) reforms, the LAA is willing to make changes if the profession commits the time and effort to assist it in doing so.
A system of direct payment would be fairer and would prevent abuse. It would bring remuneration for MC work in line with remuneration in the Crown court. It seems to us that this should eventually allow for efficiency savings for the LAA. It would also remove an administrative burden from solicitors, who would no longer have to deal with paying advocates for work done on their cases.
Any change of this nature would take time. The current Legal Aid Contract has three years to run and has the option of being extended for another two years beyond that. Let us use this time to put together a robust long-term solution to this long-running problem. We must start now.
The Criminal Bar Association has already offered its support (bit.ly/2vZ1H5H) and naturally, we welcome the views of all parties in this debate – the Bar, the LAA, the Ministry of Justice, and of course our colleagues in the solicitors’ profession. We have begun that process of engagement with all of those groups. It is the YBC’s sincere hope that real progress will be made on this vitally important issue. If you have suggestions, please email us at YBC@BarCouncil.org.uk.
Further information: A summary of the survey, Young Barristers’ Fees in the Magistrates’ Courts, can be found on youngbarhub.com and bit.ly/2y9d5MN
While the search for a long-term solution continues, here are some tips as to what may help to alleviate the situation in the short term:
Sam Roake, barrister, Red Lion Chambers
Duncan McCombe is Chair of the Young Barristers' Committee
Ask a group of junior criminal barristers if they’ve ever taken a magistrates’ court (MC) brief on the understanding that they would receive no fee whatsoever, and half will tell you yes, they have.
That’s the grim truth as revealed by the recent survey carried out by the Young Barristers’ Committee (YBC). With 1 in 4 eligible junior barristers (those in the first seven years of practice and specialising in crime) completing the survey, there is now a firm evidence base to back up what has been known anecdotally for a long time.
Unpaid fees aside, on the occasions where a fee is paid, the situation is also bleak. The majority told us (64%) that MC fees are paid on average somewhere between 1-6 months after the hearing. Twenty-four per cent said the delay was 6-12 months. Ten per cent described having to wait more than a year.
This is despite the fact that the Legal Aid Contract which solicitors sign with the Legal Aid Agency (LAA) requires counsel’s fees to be paid within 30 days (clause 3.3(b)(i)). Less than 2% of respondents were paid in that time on average.
Whose fault are these lengthy delays? 70% blamed instructing solicitors; 10% said it was the LAA; and only 2% pointed the finger at clerks or chambers (8% weren’t sure).
Sixty per cent of respondents had raised concerns in chambers, despite the obvious professional risks involved. The results, they said, were disappointing. While a tiny minority had experienced positive change (whether through fees being successfully chased or chambers no longer taking instructions from that firm), most said that nothing had changed at all.
Most were given short shrift: ‘That’s life at the Bar!’... ‘It’s part of the job!’ were examples of replies respondents had received from chambers. Another was told ‘Shut it if you want Crown court work!’; others told a similar (and familiar) story of chambers wanting to keep solicitors on-side so bigger, juicier briefs could be brought in. Another, during pupillage, was even reprimanded for raising concerns.
So, while most respondents blamed solicitors for payment delays, many of those individuals also described clerks and chambers as being complicit in the situation. Aside from the clear moral wrong of exploiting junior barristers, this raises regulatory concerns: in particular the requirement (Bar Standards Board Handbook rc110i) to treat all members of chambers in a fair and equitable manner, and the issue of referral fees.
This, along with other factors, is having a devastating impact on the young Bar. As one respondent said when asked what was done after he/she had raised concerns about the payment of MC fees: ‘Not a lot. Now on secondment trying to find a way out of the profession. Can’t afford to live. Very disheartened about the whole career at this stage – working for basic minimum wage.’ No wonder the number of barristers under five years’ Call has fallen by 30% between 2005 and 2015 (practising certificate figures for the Bar, January 2017).
Some action has been taken over the years. In 2002 the Bar Council agreed a protocol with the London Criminal Courts Solicitors’ Association concerning the payment of MC fees. This was updated in 2008 and can be found here: bit.ly/2h7zjIi. The protocol, although voluntary, sets out minimum rates for MC work (£50 for first appearances, remands, bail applications, sentences and adjourned trials; £75 for a half-day trial; and £150 for a full-day trial) and states that fees should be paid within 30 days of invoice. The new protocol was accompanied by a letter from the then Chairman of the Bar, Timothy Dutton QC, to the profession emphasising that these were minimum rates, and drawing attention to the relevant regulatory requirements for chambers (now under the BSB Handbook rc110i) and the serious potential consequences of breaching them. Yet, almost ten years on, the problem persists.
Like those 50% of criminal juniors working for free, readers are probably wondering what the solution might be.
It is clear that the current protocol is not working. If you didn’t realise it existed, you’re not alone – 43% of respondents didn’t either. The fee levels haven’t changed since 2008, not even adjusted for inflation, and will rightly be seen as derisory by many. Some of the fees received by respondents fell below even these levels and – of course – sometimes a fee won’t be received at all.
While a new protocol, or wider knowledge of the current protocol, may help at the periphery, we do not think that it is a long-term solution to the problem. The YBC’s view is that the answer is more likely to lie in the modernisation of how counsel’s fees are paid for MC work. In a criminal justice system where there is a general drive towards digitisation, and in which Crown court fees are a) set at fixed levels and b) paid directly to counsel, doesn’t the mode of payment in the lower courts look like something of a relic, and an unfair one at that? (Would anyone redesigning a system for payment now structure it as it is?)
It is the YBC’s view that a new system is needed where fee levels for all the various hearings are fixed (and kept under review) and paid directly to the advocate.
We have had various meetings with the LAA, the Remuneration Committee at the Bar Council and solicitors. No one has raised any objections of principle to such a scheme. Most of the objections appear to be simply that nothing will change and therefore that it is not worth trying. We could not disagree more. This is a serious and long-term problem which is undermining the viability of the profession as a whole. The LAA indicated to us that a change, although potentially difficult, is ‘not beyond the wit of man’. As has been shown with the proposed AGFS (Advocates’ Graduated Fee Scheme) reforms, the LAA is willing to make changes if the profession commits the time and effort to assist it in doing so.
A system of direct payment would be fairer and would prevent abuse. It would bring remuneration for MC work in line with remuneration in the Crown court. It seems to us that this should eventually allow for efficiency savings for the LAA. It would also remove an administrative burden from solicitors, who would no longer have to deal with paying advocates for work done on their cases.
Any change of this nature would take time. The current Legal Aid Contract has three years to run and has the option of being extended for another two years beyond that. Let us use this time to put together a robust long-term solution to this long-running problem. We must start now.
The Criminal Bar Association has already offered its support (bit.ly/2vZ1H5H) and naturally, we welcome the views of all parties in this debate – the Bar, the LAA, the Ministry of Justice, and of course our colleagues in the solicitors’ profession. We have begun that process of engagement with all of those groups. It is the YBC’s sincere hope that real progress will be made on this vitally important issue. If you have suggestions, please email us at YBC@BarCouncil.org.uk.
Further information: A summary of the survey, Young Barristers’ Fees in the Magistrates’ Courts, can be found on youngbarhub.com and bit.ly/2y9d5MN
While the search for a long-term solution continues, here are some tips as to what may help to alleviate the situation in the short term:
Duncan McCombe and Sam Roake reveal the grim reality, as a young Bar survey shows 50% of criminal juniors are working for free. Doing nothing is not an option and a solution must be found, they argue
Chair of the Bar sets out a busy calendar for the rest of the year
Why Virtual Assistants Can Meet the Legal Profession’s Exacting Standards
By Louise Crush of Westgate Wealth Management
Examined by Marie Law, Director of Toxicology at AlphaBiolabs
Time is precious for barristers. Every moment spent chasing paperwork, organising diaries, or managing admin is time taken away from what matters most: preparation, advocacy and your clients. That’s where Eden Assistants step in
AlphaBiolabs has announced its latest Giving Back donation to RAY Ceredigion, a grassroots West Wales charity that provides play, learning and community opportunities for families across Ceredigion County
Despite increased awareness, why are AI hallucinations continuing to infiltrate court cases at an alarming rate? Matthew Lee investigates
The proscribing of Palestine Action under the Terrorism Act is an assault on the English language and on civil liberties, argues Paul Harris SC, founder of the Bar Human Rights Committee
Come in with your eyes open, but don’t let fear cloud the prospect. A view from practice by John Dove
Anon Academic explains why he’s leaving the world of English literature for the Bar – after all, the two are not as far apart as they may first seem...
Review by Stephen Cragg KC
