The Briefs and criminal law – it’s a numbers game
Those of you able to tear yourself away from the Olympics last night might have caught the first of a two-part behind-the-scenes documentary about the lawyers and clients at the Manchester office of Tuckers.
The Briefs was made by Chameleon Television, which spent a year with the firm that styles itself as ‘the number one criminal defence firm in the country’. Through the clients the programme sought to show the gritty human reality of criminal defence work, rather than the more glamorous version portrayed in other shows like Silk or Judge John Deeds.
Viewers were introduced to clients including 63-year-old Vera, the oldest drug dealer in town, charged with possession with intent to supply; and Alex, a man with 22 convictions for burglary who is charged with... you’ve got it, burglary. The firm’s senior partner Franklin Sinclair, describing the firm’s mixed clientele, says they tend to be drug addicted, alcoholic, or have mental health problems, or are people with ‘a bit of an attitude’ who are ‘volatile and easily disturbed’.
It was sad to hear about some of them, who undoubtedly have issues that need to be addressed by other agencies rather than the criminal justice system, and who without such help may continue to re-offend.
But it is perhaps stating the obvious to say that criminal law firms need such people in order to survive.
Viewers, who heard that 90% of Tuckers' work comes from returning clients, were flies on the wall during a marketing meeting led by the head of the firm’s police station team Michelle Feager. She tells her team ‘times are hard and we need more quantity. We need shoplifters, we need repeat offenders’.
But, says Sinclair, it is too simplistic just to say that firms profit from the bad behaviour of their clients. He points out that law firms are businesses that need to make a profit in order to survive, or they will not be able to defend anyone.
The desire for publicity and business, says Sinclair, was one of the main reasons that Tuckers agreed to take part in the show when they were approached by the film-makers.
‘We are definitely hoping to get more business – it’s very important to us – we’re in a difficult market at the moment,’ he says. Because of the changes made to criminal legal aid over the last five years, Sinclair explains ‘it has become totally a numbers game – it’s all about volume’.
With the police cautioning more people or getting offenders to write letters of apology instead of charging them, firms are competing for that increased volume of work in a world of ever reducing volume.
‘There are less cases and payments are being manipulated to be as low as they can. We’re being hammered,’ he says.
In addition, Sinclair says, Tuckers is having to compete in a market with ‘cowboy criminal law firms’ that deal with cases ‘in a shoddy manner.’
‘It is hard for our firm to compete with that and provide a quality service,’ he says.
The other reasons for participating in the film, he says, were to answer the ‘dinner party question’ about how criminal lawyers can represent horrible clients, and to dispel the myth that they just ‘get people off’. It is likely that Tuckers will benefit from the publicity generated by the programme, but its current local profile it could not be described as low-key.
During the show, among shots of famous Manchester monuments, we catch a glimpse of an enormous Tuckers advert right outside Minshull Street Crown Court.
If firms like Tuckers potentially find the current environment challenging, how are others firms coping and how will they continue to struggle on? After all, there probably isn’t scope to make a documentary about every criminal legal aid firm in the country.
Catherine Baksi is a reporter on the Gazette
Follow Catherine on Twitter
Comments
You have to be brave to admit
You have to be brave to admit to the media that you are struggling. The last thing anyone wants is having your rivals saying, "Don't go there, they were on telly last night saying they are about to go bust."
Tuckers and Criminal Defence problems
Viewed the first part of this program. Was not impressed either by clientelle or lawyer representation.
The number of hours of film breaking to achieve the result was not a statement of how good the lawyers are nor how the clients needed help. More a case of showing how the lawyers were being forced down to the level of the clients.
The portrayal of young admin team members pressing for more numbers of shoplifters to enable the firm to continue was not a happy portrayal of what I think any firm would like to be known for!
The Briefs
It is a programme for lawyers about lawyers. I doubt that the average Daily Mail reader took away more than the fact that Tuckers earned £10 million from Legal Aid last year.
We could do with a bit more on being dragged out of bed at 3 in the morning to attend a custody suite at the other end of the county, and perhaps a few of those non career criminals who find themselves adrift on the choppy seas of the criminal justice system for the first time in their lives with only someone being paid less than a plumber to help them.
I note Mr Sinclair is
I note Mr Sinclair is scathing of "cowboy firms".
Haha!
Haha!
WELL DONE FRANKLIN
Well done to Franklin and his team, I fully endorse his firms approach to client acquisition , publicity is the key.
I have had the pleasure to meet Franklin at numerous conferences over 3 decades and it is always inspirational to see his brightly coloured shirts in a sea of grey black and white.
There can be very few legal disciplines capable of producing such flamboyant characters.
Keep it up, Ged HALE4BAIL
Sinclair says, Tuckers is
Sinclair says, Tuckers is having to compete in a market with ‘cowboy criminal law firms’ that deal with cases ‘in a shoddy manner.
Wow. Just Wow!
Fast cars and home visits
Very underwhelmed with this programme! The Crown Court advocate looked decidedly seedy - a shave and a haircut would not have gone amiss! - and the cars being driven around were not such as the rest of us could afford. And as for the staff meeting telling people to drum up more business... A shame that the programme could not have focussed on a more typical firm.
Oh, the advocate looked
Oh, the advocate looked seedy! Well, he must be no good at all then, must he?
How he performed in court is the only way to judge him surely? Unless we are still in the "pander to status" mindset.
Underwhelmed by the female
Underwhelmed by the female solicitor who threw a hissy fit when she could not find a client file. Also she seemed very judgmental of her 'duck feeding' client. The trainee solicitor showed far greater professionalism and understanding towards the client. Also noted the flash cars - crime can't pay that badly.
Extraordinary to hear Mr
Extraordinary to hear Mr Sinclair refer to "cowboy criminal firms" without a hint of irony...hilarious.As a criminal lawyer I watched this with horror as it showed a culture of over familiarity with clients,lack of professionalism and general seedy desparation.I hope that that is not how people will think all criminal advocates are...but I worry that it is.I'm not sure this show will be as good for business as Franklin thinks it will...
Extraordinary to hear Mr
Extraordinary to hear Mr Sinclair refer to "cowboy criminal firms" without a hint of irony...hilarious.As a criminal lawyer I watched this with horror as it showed a culture of over familiarity with clients,lack of professionalism and general seedy desparation.I hope that that is not how people will think all criminal advocates are...but I worry that it is.I'm not sure this show will be as good for business as Franklin thinks it will...
It's probably just as well
It's probably just as well that the general public will be watching the Olympics, and that only ones watching this program will be the lawyers' mothers and rival solicitors.
Viewers, who heard that 90%
Viewers, who heard that 90% of Tuckers' work comes from returning clients, were flies on the wall during a marketing meeting led by the head of the firm’s police station team Michelle Feager.
perhaps a few of those non
perhaps a few of those non career criminals who find themselves adrift on the choppy seas of the criminal justice system for the first time
It is likely that Tuckers
It is likely that Tuckers will benefit from the publicity generated by the programme.
Conveyancing
Perhaps conveyancing could be a topic for the Chamelion programme makers. I am having an experience I would very much like to share.
Criminal Hacks
Far better series to watch for any aspiring criminal lawyer is the two series of Outlaws with Phil Daniels in main role. The large firms pleading poverty and stating that it is just a numbers games show how the LSC and government are wrong to try to consider best value tendering. The state of the criminal justice system even now is struggling with court closures. It is a shame that most criminal firms behave like hyeena's and there is no collective voice. That one area the Bar do better. However the consultation showed that small 3 to 5 duty solicitor firms are most efficient business model and those are one of the types of firms who should have been seen plus even a sole practitioner to get a wider view point. The larger firms were hoping that they can take out the small players but the true is those firms provide a better quality and more personable service do not treat clients as a numbers game. clearly criminal firms need to be using soliciotr advocates due to funding changes but I still feel the profession showed in the period of the riots that they turn up work long hours for not a great reward and are not viewed or considered. Both the solicitors and the Bar will need to adapt as the Ministry of Justice seem to not value are professions. Maybe if we all decided to put an independent person in each marginal eat at next election as a combined decision by Solicitors Association and The Bar then they would start to listen!!!!
All LSC firms are playing a
All LSC firms are playing a numbers game.
Sorry, Franklin, playing numbers & quality are mutually exclusive.
BTW, nice car!
Seedy
Seedy isn't the word! - Hard to tell villain from lawyer, and yes it does matter, because in the real world rather than the Narnia where some people think we should live (and apparently do themselves) magistrates, judges and juries do take a lot more notice of advocates who match their preconceptions, irrespective of the quality of the substantive advocacy so it's not clever to cultivate the deliberately scruffy look, and in fact does the client a disservice. A glimpse of the blindingly obvioius, I'd have thought.
In any event, as already identified, looking unkempt in order to show the world what a struggle it all is and how poor we all are is somewhat undermined when people are shcmoozing around in late model Jags!