Duty solicitors face pay scrutiny
A proposal to change the way duty solicitor slots are allocated would ensure that duty lawyers are no longer ‘overpaid’, a leading criminal solicitor has suggested.
The Ministry of Justice is understood to be considering altering the current arrangements, so that duty solicitor slots are allocated to firms based on their share of the criminal defence market, rather than the number of duty solicitors they employ.
Duty solicitor rotas are distributed every six months, and the present system has created what practitioners have described as a false market, similar to that seen in the football world. Duty solicitors can command a premium salary before the start of each new rota.
Tony Edwards, senior partner at London firm TV Edwards, said many duty solicitors were ‘substantially overpaid’ at the moment and earn far less for their firms than they are paid.
He said the move would be an effective means of reducing firms’ wage bills and enabling them to make the savings required of them by the shrinking legal aid budget.
However, Greg Powell, an executive officer of the London Criminal Courts Solicitors Association, said
he had concerns about the new allocation method.
He said: ‘Duty solicitors earn their status by hard experience, and there’s no good reason why slots shouldn’t continue to be allocated based on the individuals in the firm.’
He added; ‘Allocation by market share would make many duty solicitors redundant if firms try to find cheaper solutions to providing quality advice in police stations and courts.’
The MoJ did not provide a comment.
Comments
Duty Solicitor Slots
I see the TV Edwards partners at court. They don't seem to be suffering to me. On the contrary, they have done well from the franchising system. But we can all be sure their duty solicitors and clerks have had nothing like the percentage rise in income the partners have experienced.
The problem is LA is franchising. It was cheaper before and can be cheaper again just by getting rid of this foolish micro management.
The LSC should concentrate on setting the price and let us innovate to meet it.
Duty Solicitors
I have to say that I was held to ransom by duty solicitors during the recent duty slot allocation process. However, the system created the market and not the duty solicitors.
I am a little bemused when commentators do not seem to understand that the difficulties in criminal legal aid affect firms of solicitors i.e. pertners and solicitors i.e. employees in different ways.
The entire system and how it has developed demonstrates that nobody is fully aware of potential outcomes, See the recent family legal aid debacle for evidence. What does semm inevitable is thet the legal aid pie is going to be made smaller and large firms are doing deals to get a bigger slice of the remaining pie. They will the dictate salary levels so that partnership profits can be maintained. The irony for me is that some of the current large providers were built up with the profits available when legal aid work was more lucrative and now seem to be denying the same opportunity to new entrants by possible market domination which seems to be supported by the government. We will end up with large cumbersome organisations which evolve into 'stale' entities as the new talent will certainly not seek to gain employment in publicly funded areas of work.
The comparison between premiership football players and duty solicitors is a distortion best left to the arguments about the fees claimed by Q.Cs If the MoJ want to reduce the spend by 25% the they should just get on and do it. Firms will the make rational business decisions based on available income levels which subject to quality service levels being maintained will be available to current providers as well as potential new providers without the creation of oligopolies which will not be able to deliver the costs savings sought
Duty Solicitor slots
I think Mr Edwards comments have to be seen in context. He is a partner in the largest criminal firm in the country. To allocate duty solicitor slots based on market share is clearly going be of enormous financial benefit to a firm in his position. I suspect Mr Edwards is less concerned about reducing the legal aid budget than by increasing his own profits and sees this as a convenient way to increase his own profits by hiding behind the argument that it will reduce the legal aid budget.
The fact is that it won't reduce the legal aid budget. His firm would still bill the LSC for as much as they can and the money saved from paying the duty solicitors (whose qualifications are brining in the work) will instead go towards the partners’ profits. Ultimately, paying duty solicitors less will mean fewer people are attracted to do legal aid work and the quality of representation will fall.
Duty solicitors face pay scrutiny
I agree with the post at 12.49. This is just another instance of the Big firms doing their best to maximise profits at the expense of the rank and file. To say that there is a false market is a complete nonsense, firms across London employ duty solicitors on all kinds of different renumeration levels whether it be as employees or on a self employed basis.
As a matter of common sense, a solicitor who is eligible for slots has more value than a solicitor without any slots and is therefore in a position to negotiate better rates of pay. The same distinction could be made between experienced solicitors with a developed client base and an inexperienced solicitor who has no following - clearly the former is much more marketable.
Effectively Edwards is saying that any cuts should be passed direct to solicitors - if his firm controls the slots then he knows full well that he can pay what he likes and by increasing his own profit margins he can negate the impact of the inevitable cuts on his own profits.
Profit, pure and simple
You cannot blame Mr Edwards for wanting more profit. This comes on the back of his article in The London Advocate where he basically said all small firms were rubbish. He wants to sound important, but no-one listed to him at the MOJ when he was a LSC Commissioner, so there is not much chance he will be taken seriously now. This is all scare tactics.
Anthony Edwards is less discerning when charging delegates to come on his courses. My money will be spent elsewhere this cpd year and I suggest that all other solicitors do the same, he can then have his own taste of market economics.
Allocation of slots
As "Duty Solicitor" posted, the reality is that providing slots to those firms who already have the lion's share of the market in their areas simply maintains the status quo.
To allow criminal firms to start up in the new round of contracts and then to marginalise them through cynical manipulation of the market is disgusting.
Allow the market for duty solicitors to set its own levels for these wages and these firms will have to speculate to accumulate.
For the TV Edwards and Tuckers of this world to further cement their positions in this market with the active endorsement of the LSC is anti-competitive and wrong.
In relation to the QCs remark, I am counsel (though not at the dizzy heights of Her Majesty's chosen few) and I agree with the notion that the disproportionate fees claimed by them is where the cuts must start. Maybe I will feel differently about that in 20 years time but, for now, I cannot see how the QC fatcats justify their keep in most cases.
For heaven's sake though, let's not have the rank and file in both professions turning on each other. There has been too much of that already. We all accept that cuts are coming. We will all have to handle them. So LSC, set the price and let us worry about how we put bread on the table. Few other markets would tolerate this type of long-winded, micro-managing initiative overload.
Tony Edwards' view - Share of the criminal defence market
As someone who has been a duty solicitor for over 20 years, I wonder whether Tony Edwards includes in his criminal defence market those matters, either at the police station or a first appearance in the Magistrates' Court, which go no further. I suspect he does not. In which case, he fails to recognise that the best that a duty solicitor can do, if not the most profitable for a firm, is to prevent a prosecution and/or deal with or finish a case at a first appearance.
Duty Solicitor Slots
This is an interesting but wasted debate – advice at police stations and the work of duty solicitors is going to be axed with substantial savings to the LSC budget. That will be a financial disaster for some but will sharpen the minds of solicitors when they have to take a fresh look at how they attract work to their firms. The conveyor belt of work provided to firms that cram their offices with duty solicitors is anti competitive and stifles innovation and opportunity.
Edwards and Market Economics
Good idea to boycott Edwards' extortionately priced courses - of course if they were offered on a non profit basis then costs could be reduced and it would help all solicitors and firms to deal with the cuts that are on their way.
As stated above the market set's it own level for payment - most firms recognise that with fixed fees for Pace attendances it's scarcely possible to make a profiit from that work in any event and that Pace attendances are a loss leader. That's why firms in London have over the years been prepared to pay freelance/self employed duty solicitors most or all of the fee - if they dont work then they dont get paid - if they are busy then the work and rep orders follow through to the firms. Plus the firms can build themselves up through duties without having to commit to employing more salaried staff with all the associated cost.
Of course take away that flexibility by allocating slots to the firms and no new firms will ever be able to have a chance to expand through duty work. We've heard plenty about finding market based solutions over the years - Edwards's stance is a blatantly monopolist and anti competitive one.
Duty Sols
What a plonker.
As ever Mr Edwards seems to
As ever Mr Edwards seems to be suggesting ways that partners within the bigger firms can maintain their own incomes when it is in fact their ways of doing business, previous exploitation of the system and greed which have lead to the massive legal aid budget over spend in the first place. Whilst most duty solicitors earn a modest salary the same I am sure can not be said of most partners in firms such as TV Edwards and others. Keen to look after themselves and their own interests they make suggestions which if implemented would effectively ensure that criminal legal aid is run by a few very rich individuals who would have a complete monopoly which in itself would mean that in years to come they would be able to hold the government to ransom.
a ridiculous suggestion and one that insults many in his profession.
Representation for Duty Solicitor employees
Employed duty solicitors require representation in these debates. The LSC negotiates contracts with the law firms who employ the duty solicitors. This is a commercial arrangement that favours the employers, not the employees. The employers have spokespersons, but the vast bulk of duty solicitor employees who actually provide the front-line services 24/7, are not represented. For example, as all duty solicitors work to LSC standards, the LSC could cut out the profiteers by paying duty solicitors directly, according to the work done, thereby making all duty solicitors "consultants".
I agree with the last post.
I agree with the last post. Mr Edwards' ill conceived comments do indeed insult many hardworking and highly qulaified members of his own profession. I would be lying if I said I was not angered by them.
Thankfully, the allocation of duty slots is one of the few things which prevent many criminal legal aid lawyers being exploited by people like Mr Edwards.
The "premiuim" salary I managed to command as an 8 year PQE in one of the biggest, best and busiest firms in London was £37,000 per annum! I worked hard and consistently earned in fees more than three times that amount for my employers.
That salary is unlikely to come close to the salary that would be expected by a similarly qualified executive working in a government department such as the Ministry of Justice (not to mention the added benefits of a pension etc, of which there are none for a duty solicitor). Further, the duty solicitor salary is a pittance next to the partnership earnings of Mr Edwards et al in the larger criminal firms (many of whom have probably do not even cover their own roats and have not seen the inside of a police station for years.....I accept that Mr Edwards himself may well be an exception to this particular rule!).
What does Mr Edwards seriously suggest duty solicitors should be earning? 20k? That job as sales assistant at the local Superdrug now sounds tempting!
This is already a profession full to the brim of lawyers who are considering leaving, or certainly would do if they had the professional choices now which they once had. And as for the partner who was "held to ransom" by his duty solicitors, if they are not worth what they are asking for, then don't employ them.
Surely it would be fairer for the implications of any cuts to be borne by the Partners (most of who have enjoyed the golden years), rather than those Solicitors at the coal face, whose qualifications are not matched at all by the average duty solicitor salary.
Despite Mr Edwards' views, I have confidence that the MOJ will not let down the great majority of lawyers who specialise in criminal law.
All in the same boat.
He can't get the MoJ to "kill" us by terminating our GCC contracts and removing the competition for his firm, so now TE want just to pitch our staff. Typical. TV Edwards has got to bear the big cuts in legal aid that there will be just like the rest of us.
Duty solicitors and Tony Edwards comments
First off, the article comparing duty solicitors and the current situation to the false market in football!!!!! Brilliant, have never laughed so much! Were it not for the fact that all the changes to funding etc in the time I've been qualified (8 years) have left me totally jaded and no longer caring what happens to my profession/the market/the criminal justice system/society in general - I would have gone mental at that comparison! Whoever subscribes to that view, whether it be Ms Baksi or "many practitioners" really have lost all semblance of fairness and logic in their quest for profit. I'd love to know who the "many practitioners are" and whether they remember when they were in the position of a duty solicitor looking for an employer. I met Tony when I was newly qualified at one of his courses, when he had just defected to the LSC and he seemed affable and reasonable, he said to me that you change things from the inside and it was due to him the Narey payments were kept. That went well didn't it? I can only comment on what he has said about the duty solicitor allocation - to practically say that if he was able to pay his duty solicitors less, he could pass those savings on to the legal aid budget is repulsive. It is an affront to the intelligence of everyone and anyone who has ever worked in the criminal justice system and I feel sorry for him. I'm sure Tony and his partners are doing well. I just think it is a shame that he may be taken seriously and that the Law Society will do nothing about it.
DUTY SOLICITORS AND MONOPOLIES OF GIVEN FIRMS
Duty solicitors work extremely hard in difficult conditions and at unsocial hours. They are seldom paid what they are worth (bearing in mind that their value usually goes far beyond their duty slots and attendances at court and police stations). If we are all going to have to accept cuts in this area then employers and employees will have to bear the brunt together. However cuts must be met proportionally with partnership profits taking the bigger hit. Mr. Edwards' comments are concerning because he seems to suggest passing the cost of the cuts on to duty solicitors. If this were the case then quality would undoubtedly plummet. You can only pay employees so little before the good ones pack up and leave.
The suggestions would naturally be good for the biggest firms and smaller firms should not expect any mercy from the MOJ; this is what it wants too and there can be no question that quality of work and access to justice come well below cost-cutting in the MOJ's list of priorities. One clear consequence of creating the proposed monopolies is the utterly decimating effect it will have on BME own firms, the vast majority of which are small. It would also prevent any new entry into the market. Our best hope is that the current suggestions fall foul of some form of legislative safeguard.
It is probably the worst kept secret in the industry that the MOJ has been holding 'secret' talks with the biggest firms for some time now. Nobody should suggest that the Criminal Justice System owes any of us a living but the proposed artificial manipulation of the playing field to the majority benefit of selected firms with whom the MOJ is 'secretly' negotiating is deeply unfair and anti-competitative.
duty slots
I might be going senile but I'm sure the LSC mooted this arrangement in 2006/7?
Some firms with only 2 duty solicitors were going to be allocated 23% of the slots on my local scheme whilst others with 4 duty solicitors were being offered 9%. This had been based on how much work they had been undertaking previously in terms of call outs.
I don't know why it was abandoned. I can't recall what, if any, reasons were given but it does seem to discriminate against newer firms that have spent time and effort into training Solicitors up to pass the accreditation and it would hamper newly appointed duty solicitors from developing access to a potential client base. It is not taking into account their future potential which is vital really, when so many older firms are giving it up or agenting cases out to reps all the time, which makes a mockery of the previous call out statistics!
Regarding the above comment I don't know why we have the Law Society anymore. What use are they? They show no interest in any of us. All they seem to care about is investigating client's (usually unjustified) complaints about us, not protecting our profession.
It's all about deskilling isn't it?
Duty solicitors are already priced out of doing anything except the most basic criminal damage or shoplifting. I have already retrained as a tourist guide. If we are paid so much, why can I earn more taking Italian language students round Westminster Abbey for two hours than I can for a morning in court? I get paid more sitting with American students watching and explaining court proceedings than the poor sods we are watching!
Tesco law. Pile it high. Sell it cheap. Criminal defence lawyers are clearly worth the same as shelf stackers.
Duty Slots
It is my understanding based on the contents of a course delivered by the other top course deliverer ! that the path to retaining DS status by delivering training was inserted at the instigation of Mr Edwards - though the name wasn't used. This means he can stay on the register by telling us how to do the job without actually having to attend either a Court or more importantly a police station at all.
As a partner of a firm in Birmingham with a medium size based on Duty Solicitors i am happy with the present system and do not feel that i am held to ransom, over paying my staff etc. In fact i recently was sat with some trainee's from the College of Law who were talking about their future, one had been offered a training contract starting salary £5k more than one of my very experienced 10 year pqe. The other was a bit cheesed off at being offered double the training contract minimum.
There are plenty of area's where we could assist Mr Clarke's decision making.
How about removing the requirement for the police to call a third party so they can generate a number to give to us to enable us to get paid for talking and attending on our client. Introducing a complicated and irrelevant level of management into a fairly straightforward system and costing what ?
How about going back to the Auld Report and suggestions. Give DJ's more power - if DJ's had 3 or even 4 years how many cases would go to the Crown Court as a Court determination. How many times have you sat behind or read the reports from 3 strike burglars in the Crown Court where you could have got the same if not better result. Same with most other cases. There should still be a right to election for all the usual reasons but a lot of clients would be happy to stay and get dealt with quicker and probably more reasonably in the Magistrates.
DUTY SOLICITORS AND MONOPOLIES OF GIVEN FIRMS
Criminal firms will be caught between a rock and hard place if the government slashes the fee for police attendances since it is now a contractual requirement that duty solicitors attend the police station themselves at least 24 times a year (rather than sending an accredited representative). Having a large number of duty solicitors in those circumstances could be a liability. Never mind the quality, of course.
This is getting
This is getting ridiculous.
I've worked for two smaller firms where the quality of service was pretty poor. People get away without doing any proper Legal work and operate what are basically admin centres for criminal defence. They brief everything.
The principles in these firms never went near court or the police station. They were making I would say easily in excess of 200k per annum. They were not able to offer any real training becasue all they did was admin as opposed to law. They did however have trainees to do the donkey work.
They then briefed anything that required a real lawyer.
I also suspect there was a fair few brown envelopes floating around between counsel and other firms with "conflicts". None of which can be proved.
It is a generational thing again Mr Edwards. Those principles who got their free education and truely believed the system owed them a good living have shimmied up the greasy pole and are now pulling the ladders up behind them.
There is so many things unfair in the present system that this is just a plan to be unfair in a different way.
Just think of the people with duty slots who live abroad and just do the phone calls from there.
Overpaid? Humph. Me and my
Overpaid?
Humph. Me and my big £34K/year? Seriously?
Duty Sols
It is desperately sad to see someone whose opinion is so often respected and valued both inside and outside of the profession making such a scandalous error of judgment. Staff morale at TV Edwards is no doubt at its lowest ebb after the boss has basically said they're not worth the money he's paying them, having already been told not to expect a payrise at any point in the future! Hardly going to inspire people to work hard for you if you do nothing to show your appreciation for what they do - financially or otherwise. Shame on you Mr Edwards.
Tony Edwards and the future
I have come across Tony Edwards many times during my career. He has infuriated and delighted me in equal measure. His “stock in trade” is a formidable talent at digesting and paraphrasing the latest criminal law cases and statutes; being linked to the (last) government but not in any way being a Soviet style loony (they’ve been arrested, so must be guilty, seemingly being the mantra of many in New Labour) and above all, charm. The man could charm the birds out of the trees. However, in the words of Anthony Blanche (in Brideshead Revisited) “Charm is the great English blight, it exists not outside these damp islands. It spots and kills anything it touches.” By this he meant charm suspends judgement. I have often had my harsher judgements of Tony suspended after seeing him, usually on one of his many courses. Tony does bear a remarkable resemblance to Nickolas Grace, the actor who played Blanche in the classic series of Brideshead Revisited and so I am often reminded of this literary quote when I think of Tony.
I happily referred people to TV Edwards for representation and even the most hard boiled have returned swooning over Tony’s reception of them. He is endlessly available to his fellow solicitors and often purveys good ideas for nothing. However, Tony can be very vigorous if he thinks criminal defence solicitors had exceeded their remit. I am thinking of his opposition to the short lived rule which required all arrested people to have separate solicitors. A short while ago he was saying he thought solicitors should be on £80,000.00 a year. So, why has he changed his tune?
Tony is the formidable insider with many many connections. My guess is that ‘he can smell the coffee’ and it is very bitter indeed for criminal defence duty solicitors.
“The Whig view of history” is one of endless progress upwards and onwards. However, if you live long enough you notice that matters actually go in cycles. We are at the end of two cycles. The cycle of petit bourgeois rule, as epitomised by Margaret Thatcher, John Major and Tony Blair’s ministers (particularly Blunkett and Straw) and the cycle of public sector growth. The Old Etonians are in charge now and we are now going into a massive cutting of public expenditure.
One of the obsessions of petit bourgeois rule was law and order. The Police received huge resources and ACPO became a major power in the land. When it seemed that the whole criminal justice system was about to collapse in the early 1980s, chiefly because of the breakdown of public confidence in the Police, there were stringent and successful attempts to address the problem. The introduction of PACE and the professionalisation of the Police solved this. Part of PACE was an explosion in representation, culminating in the establishment of the duty scheme. The duty rota became very important for firms because it provided an opportunity to obtain clients. Firms could afford to be generous to those on the rota because they were, in effect, rainmakers for the whole firm. The Old Etonians have not displayed the same concern for law and order. It is clearly not a priority and will be subject to very heavy cuts. It is likely that this will include savage cuts in the police duty scheme. Possibly payments for telephone advice and attendance being set at the same rate. However, as long as there is a scheme, then it will be the “rainmaker” for criminal defence firms. Any ’switched on’ partner of any criminal defence firm must realise that, once the cuts set in, he or she is going to have to subsidise duty solicitor pay from profits, rather than just giving them a percentage of the duty fee, as is normally done now. The answer to this problem is suggested by Tony Edwards. Give the rotas to firms, rather than individual solicitors. Firms could then sub contract all Police Station duty work to legal representatives and save a fortune.
It is important to bear in mind that these changes will not be made in isolation. Reductions in Police numbers (by a non hire policy) and liberalisation in sentencing is bound to lead to a drop in numbers of persons arrested and a drop in the numbers of people applying for legal aid and the numbers being granted legal aid. Add to this additional cuts in criminal legal aid. There is going to be less money all round and so firms will not be able to afford to subsidise payments to their own duty solicitors. Tony Edwards must know this and is, as usual, positioning his firm to take advantage.
One thing I must add. Tony Edwards is the pre-eminent criminal defence solicitor of his generation. The others who claim leadership of our branch of the profession cannot hold a candle to him (and I have met them all over the years) but he seems to “be all things to all men”, which is a terrible trait in these polarised and harsh times and so when one moves out of the orbit of his charm one becomes suspicious of his motives and motivation.
Anon 02.01 is mistaken if he
Anon 02.01 is mistaken if he believes that there has been a succesful attempt to address the seeming collapse in the criminal justice system.
Public confidence in the police, particularly among the petit bourgeois, must be at an all time low. This is caused by the "criminalisation" of the population by the mass of legislation creating offences for trivial matters whilst the police are incapable of dealing with major crimes. The police are now seen as the enemy not the friend.
Further ACPO itself is one of the most insidious organisations currently extant, seemingly with an agenda of its own, entirely outside democratic control.
As ever the restriction of liberty occurs under the guise of the "public good"-this time because of "Al-Qaeda". Once upon a time (and in a galaxy now very far away indeed) the Prevention of Terrorism Act had to be renewed every year by Parliament. This was because it infringed basic rights and there would be a time when it was no longer necessary. Our Rulers decided that time would never come, but gave us the utterly useless Human Rights Act as a sop to liberal opinion.
Hypocrisy and Propaganda (Spin)
The Anonymous 0950 response could have been drawn straight from the pages of the Guardian or Daily Mail. The former like to see the Police as evil authoritarians and the latter like to see them as working class upstarts who have the temerity to give out fixed penalty notices to fine upstanding members of the middle classes. Thus, the picture is painted that is echoed here. Police officers attacking the fine upstanding middle classes whilst ignoring the real criminals.
In fact, anyone with the smallest acquaintance with the criminal law knows that serious crimes are investigated and prosecuted. There is a problem with VHCC payouts precisely because this is so. There would be no VHCC payouts if the canard about failure to investigate serious crime were true.
Another myth which binds the Guardian and Daily Mail is that solicitors stick together and support each other.
In fact, we have a body, the SRA, which is now unaccountable as ACPO. It was rendered unaccountable because the Law Society Council, a part elected body, surrendered all its regulatory powers to the SRA.
Also, ACPO does not have the power to bankrupt individual police officers simply because they have been arrested. The SRA does have the power to do this, by way of intervention on mere suspicion of dishonesty. Coincidently being the threshold for arrest.
Anonymous 0950 had better look closely at his own profession (if , indeed, you are a solicitor) before criticising others.
Reply to 09:50 by 02:01
I must disagree with the comments made by Anonymous 0950 in response to my post at 02.01. The situation was much more serious in the early 1980s because there were clear signs that juries were disbelieving the police, simply because they were the police. The reason for this was public exposure of “Life on Mars” style policing and the end of the predominance of the war generation, who had got used to such rigour when called up to the army or other forces. This threatened anarchy and Mrs Thatcher was characteristically radical in dealing with it. The result was PACE, increased pay of police officers and a very successful attempt to professionalise the police. The only failure was the attempt to build up a forces style commissioned officer corps. That failed because of the continuing working class ethos in the police.
Defence solicitors do not seem to appreciate that the flipside of these reforms was increased rights of representation, culminating in the duty scheme.
The Coalition Government is not really worried about anarchy. I have some experience of Eton and know that what is taught there, above all, is arrogance. An arrogant attitude is seen as all that is needed to carry all.
In addition, there is a huge disconnect between the police and the public schools. There is only one Chief Constable from a major public school, Peter Neyroud and his current job, as head of the NPIA, is about to be phased out. You cannot say the same of any other major organisation in the UK. All the others are dominated by the product of the public schools and by middle class people of all races and creeds. .It is an extraordinary irony that the socialist dream, of working class predominance, has been built in the police and only in the police.
The Coalition Government will cut and cut within the police and those cuts will be carried in to the duty scheme and affect criminal defence solicitors.
The main problem is that criminal defence solicitors have been under sustained attack since 1997 and there is very little fat to cut but Anthony Edwards realises there are further and deeper cuts to come and is positioning himself and his firm to mitigate them.
Who can blame him when the “esprit de corps” in our “dog eat dog” profession is non-existent. I will not repeat what I said about Anthony Edwards in my last posting but I will say that he has, at least, shown a willingness to help his fellow solicitors whilst so many others have been so obsessed with profit or dazzled by “New Labour” that they have simply thought only of themselves.
Response to Anon 13.09
One wonders in what respect it is hypocrisy to point out beliefs as to the police which are now commonly held. Certainly those beliefs are more widely held than has historically been the case, and by sectors of the community who used to hold the police in high, possibly too high, regard. If this is because of the Guardian and Daily Mail, then they are indeed powerful-but it is unlikely that this is the case.
Much more likely is that personal experience has led to this change. Policing can only properly be done with the consent of the people-that is being swiftly eroded.
With regard to the prosecution of serious crimes, Anon 13.09 makes a good point; however it does not seem to apply where innocent people are killed by the police. "No prosecution" is believed to be the order of the day.
The SRA and ACPO are both insidious. The Law Society did indeed surrender its powers to the SRA. When the SRA was set up, a balancing body tasked with defending solicitors should also have been set up (i.e. a true representative body) but the Law Society is too supine to do so.
However the SRA carries very little political power, whilst ACPO carries a great deal and is seeking to increase it. The SRA can only affect solicitors (and yes, its powers to destroy their livelihood are far too great); ACPO and its "policies" affect everyone (but they are not a disciplinary body).
Finally, why should looking at ones own profession first (which as above in respect of the SRA, has been done anyway) be a condition of criticising others? Surely a public service is open to comment by all-all are affected by it (oh, and pay for it).
Overpaid duty solicitors?
I would just like to know what level of salary constitutes being overpaid? Is that more than the minimum wage? I would settle for a senior crown prosecutor's wage plus their pension benefits.
Duty Solicitors
Poor old Tony - opened the hornets nest again I see!
When the LSC came knocking on our doors with the plague of tendering the race to employ the most duty solicitors was on. Whoever had the most duty slots would win the race and therefore the market reacted and wages on offer rose.
With the demise of tendering, wages expectation not following suit and the comprehensive spending review around the corner a new uncertainty has emerged for the employer, wages bill vs income generated.
This current market is again down to the LSC's constant change of policy and lack of foresight.
You can employ as many duty solicitors as you like but if the guaranteed throughput of work is not there then your business will fail. Take some solice in the fact that those firms paying through the nose for their new second rate duty solicitors may not be around long.
With this in mind is it so wrong for an employer try to gain some stability? We may not all be partners but at least we have jobs. Conversely whats wrong with a duty solicitor wanting to maximise their worth while they can?
The big issue that is really being missed is the inclusion on the rotas of solicitors who no longer undertake the work but have sold there 'slot' to the highest bidder. This is a disgrace to the profession and undermines the whole duty rota allocation system by creating an inequitable distribution of work.
Duty Solicitors and Greedy Partners
I am the sole principal of a high street firm undertaking mainly legal aid work and earn less than my duty solicitors. I am not whingeing. It is my choice but I want to redress the greedy partner assertions made by anumber of your bloggers. My firm is generally profitable - albeit not highly; profits after tax and after allowing me a 'nominal' salary of £30 are c£50k. Anyone looking at the bare accounts might assume I 'earn' about £85k a year reaping the profits of the hard work of my staff. Not true. I carry a full case load and work a 5 day week. Because there are less than 30 of all together ( including 3 duty solicitors ) I can't afford a full back room adminstrative set up so I also work the equivalent of another 2 days a week on running my business. I think that I am worth about £55k a year. However despite the head line figures I don't even 'earn' that. Instead of withdrawing all the profits every year I need to leave at least 50% in to cover lean times and provide working capital. I invested money in setting up the business but charge no interest on it and I risk bankruptcy if things go pear shaped. My duty solicitors earn a basic salary and out of hours. They work hard and I would pay them more if I could. They earn with overtime bewteen 40-55K pa. Over the last 2 years property work has declined and we have felt the loss. My property staff are also hard working loyal staff. Rather then lose them I have tried to redeploy them and decided to retain more profit to subsidise their salaries and avoid redundancies. If this wasn't the reason I had to retain more profit in the business there would be another - updated computers/software, increased PII etc. Over the last two years I have earned £30k pa. I don't begrudge doing so. It is my choice. I suspect I am not alone among partners. The headline figures do not always tell the full story.