Government unveils overhaul of legal aid and civil litigation costs
Legal aid providers as a whole will see their income slashed by up to £154m annually, it emerged today, as the government unveiled its plans for reform of the system.
A wide range of civil cases will no longer be eligible for legal aid, and fees paid in civil and family cases will be cut by 10% across the board, according to Ministry of Justice plans set out in a consultation paper, Proposals for the Reform of Legal Aid in England and Wales, released today.
Small legal aid providers are likely to be ‘disproportionately affected’ by the reforms compared with other legal aid providers, accompanying papers said. Legal aid firms across the board stand to earn between £144m and £154m less annually, the documents said.
Under the plans, £350m will be saved from the MoJ’s budget by 2014/15 if its proposals are implemented in full, the government estimated.
The key civil and family cases that would be cut from the legal aid scheme are:
- Private law children and family cases (where domestic violence is not present);
- Employment;
- Education;
- Immigration where the individual is not detained;
- Clinical negligence;
- Ancilliary relief cases (where domestic violence is not present);
- Consumer and general contract;
- Welfare benefits;
- Legal help for the Criminal Injuries Compensation Authority;
- Debt matters where the client’s home is not at immediate risk; and
- Certain housing matters.
The government confirmed that competitive tendering for criminal legal aid will be introduced in 2011/12, and later, for civil and family legal aid.
The government simultaneously launched a consultation on Lord Justice Jackson’s recommendations for reforming civil litigation costs. It proposes taking forward Jackson’s recommendations to abolish the recoverability of success fees and after-the-event insurance, to allow contingency fee agreements, and to increase general damages by 10% in personal injury cases. The government said it will wait until the Legal Services Board completes its review of referral fees before choosing whether or not to follow Jackson’s recommendation to abolish them.
Justice secretary Ken Clarke said: ‘I strongly believe that access to justice is the hallmark of a civilised society. But at more than £2bn each year, we currently have one of the most expensive legal aid systems in the world. This cannot continue.
‘Since the scheme was established in 1949, its scope has been widened far beyond what was originally intended. There has never been a substantive review of the entire system to ensure it is sustainable, proportionate and affordable.
‘I believe that the taxpayer should continue to provide legal aid to those who need it most and for serious issues. But the current system can encourage lengthy, acrimonious and sometimes unnecessary court proceedings, at taxpayers’ expense, which may not always ensure the best result for those involved.
‘The proposals I have outlined today suggest clear tough choices to ensure access to public funding in those cases that really require it, the protection of the most vulnerable in society and the efficient performance of the justice system.’
Law Society chief executive Desmond Hudson said: ‘The lord chancellor has made it clear that only the poorest of the poor will continue to be eligible for legal aid. If the government persists with these proposals it would represent a sharp break from the long-standing bipartisan consensus that effective access to justice is essential to underpin the rule of law.
‘Legal aid clients are some of the most vulnerable in society and good legal representation where required is essential if they are to obtain justice. The Society will now consider the green paper in detail.’
Justice minister Jonathan Djanogly said of the civil litigation costs consultation: ‘We want to reduce overall costs, ensure claimants have a financial interest in controlling legal costs incurred on their behalf and deter avoidable, unnecessary or unmeritorious cases. Under the current arrangements claimants generally have no interest in the costs being incurred on their behalf because, win or lose, as they do not have to pay anything towards them.
‘Today’s proposals are designed to prevent the situation in which, regardless of the merits of their case, defendants are forced to settle for fear of prohibitive costs. I want to strike the right balance between access to civil justice and ensuring that costs are proportionate, sustainable and affordable.’
The paper highlighting the estimated £154m maximum loss of income to legal aid providers, and the impact on small firms, is an impact assessment titled Cumulative Legal Aid Reform Proposals, released alongside the government’s main consultation document.
Comments
Oh wonderful, perhaps the
Oh wonderful, perhaps the Government would also like to refund the £000's of pounds I invested in order to become a legal aid Solicitor.
Greedy Laywers
If Lawyers were not so greedy then there wouldn't be the need to cut legal aid. There again, if the useless ex-Labour Government hadn't wasted so much of our money on 'Quangos', foreign aid, expenses, Benefits, Tax Credits, legal aid for Asylum Seekers and illegal Immigrants, criminals etc, etc then none of these cutbacks on the honest working class people would have been necessary! So glad I am emigrating from this sinking ship!
glad you're emmigrating
& good riddance to you
Greedy lawyers
Part of the problem, not the solution. I am therefore certain that this country will benefit from the absence of a small minded, bigoted ignoramous such as your good self. I do however have the utmost sympathy with your adopted nation
well said
our country is better off without that sort of attitude.
Agree with the second poster
Funny thing is I am a lawyer who trained in a legal aid firm. The Partners' car park was full of Mercs. The abuse of the legal aid system was shocking - hence it wasn't for me. Millions of pounds are wasted by the sub-class fighting to keep their kids (when they can't look after them) or fighting over a toaster when they split up. The abuse of the immigration system is scandalous. The system is broken and driven by greed. Bring on the cuts; cut the waste.
Online
Interesting to see a comment in the consultation paper about their being online solutions for many divorcing couples. at 4.156 “In addition, there is advice available online to help couples to navigate the divorce process. The presence of these alternatives is not determinative, but makes the provision of legal aid in these cases less likely to be justified.”
Isn't this just inevitable?
Isn't this just inevitable? Shouldn't we all get out now by refusing the contract extensions?
Isn't this just inevitable?
Isn't this just inevitable? Shouldn't we all get out now by refusing the contract extensions?
Legal Aid Cuts
"..There again, if the useless ex-Labour Government hadn't wasted so much of our money on 'Quangos', foreign aid, expenses, Benefits, Tax Credits, legal aid for Asylum Seekers and illegal Immigrants, criminals etc, etc then none of these cutbacks on the honest working class people would have been necessary! So glad I am emigrating from this sinking ship!..."
Hope you don't come back now. Especially when you need the NHS....
When I used to do criminal
When I used to do criminal work I'd say at least 50% of my clients could easily have afforded paying privately if they had been forced to - most seemed to drive around in better cars than me...
And legal aid for ancillary relief and custody battles allowed clients to have a pop at their former spouse without real regard to the cost.
But why should asylum seekers, most of whom will have paid a kings ransom to get to the UK (travelling across other countries en route such as France and Spain where they could just as easily claim asylum) automatically get legal aid when they have contributed naff all to this country?
Driving Around in Mercs
So, applying the logic of Anonymous' analysis of the partners' car park in a legal aid firm, NHS Consultants should be abolished, and there should be no "Superheads" earning between £100k and £200k pa in education.
If there was abuse of the system it should have been reported to the LSC. But if all that was occurring was maximising the profitability of the firm (encouraged by the LSC as it says it wants to work with financially stable "providers") there is absolutely nothing wrong with that - indeed it is perverse to level criticism at it.
As for the "sub-class" comment, many parents facing care proceedings are faced with a large number of difficulties, some of their own making, some of them not, and they do not all come from poor/deprived areas - mental illness and drug/alcohol addiction do not respect socio-economic boundaries.
None of us is perfect, but the vast majority of people (even the so-called "sub-class" - perhaps we should reintroduce the feudal system?) do their best, and sometimes all they need is help. About 25% of applications for care or supervision orders conclude without children being removed from their families. Is Anonymous saying we should deprive those children of the opportunity of being brought up by their parents?
And if he/she is, is he/she willing to accept the cost to the taxpayer of keeping many such children (those who do not find adoptive parents, and many do not) in the care system for the remainder of their childhood? (Well over £1m per child, with over 66,000 children in care at present)
No system of public funding, whatever it pays for, is without flaws. There will always be those who benefit when they should not. Improvement (as opposed to mere "change" or "reform") can always be made, and it is right we should strive for it. But that does not justify throwing out the baby with the bathwater, or the gratuitous denigration of other human beings.
It pleases me greatly to that
It pleases me greatly to that the days of the cracked trial fee for guilty plea in the Crown Court is well and truly over. In case anyone doesn't know it works like this: the closer to the trial that a defendant pleads guilty the more the Barrister gets paid. There is absolutely no incentive whatsoever for the Barrister to get client to plead guilty at the first opportunity - in fact he gets paid significantly less if the defendant does. It is a scandal. Cases can take up to 1 year before getting to trial - that means victims can spend one year with their life on hold only to find out that they are not required for trial. Barristers like this system, they call it a fat trial fee.
Legal Aid White Paper
It is simply appalling that the MOJ are proposing the removal of Legal Aid in the Welfare Benefit and Debt categories, especially at a time when thousands are involved in appealing unjust decisions and when trillions of pounds is said to be owing in consumer debts. When will this absurdity end? Do these people not realize how hard us practitioners work on behalf of our clients at a time when increasing numbers are turning us to advice. Taking away the LSC's powers on policy leaves it powerless to resist anything this Government wants to do. This Government has gone to far and has shown a blatant disregard of a fundamental access to justice.
Financing Family Cases
As a solicitor practising in Family Law, I continue to be surprised at the general level of ignorance that surrounds legal aid both at a political level and at grass-roots - fuelled, mainly, I'm sure by bad journalism.
I can only really speak to legal aid in relation to family disputes, as that is my area, but it has not been my experience that lawyers enjoy the form-filling, hoop-jumping bureaucracy that accompanies having a legal aid contract. In fact, my experience has been that good lawyers enter into legal aid work because they genuinely believe that clients should be entitled to good, robust and fair legal advice whatever their circumstances or personal wealth. And, despite earning a maximum of 68.50 (in London) per hour (when a regional firm will easily charge 180 per hour ex vat and upwards) they continue to do it.
There is already provision within civil legal aid (including family cases) that if one party recovers or preserves any property (which is usually the case within ancillary relief or TLATA applications) that the LSC will hold a charge over that property - demanding that the costs of the legal fees be paid back. Legal aid is not free and Jonathan Djanogly and Kenneth Clarke appear to have glossed over this entirely.
If legal aid were stripped from areas within family law, such as private law family disputes then, from my experience, it would be the children who suffered. I often represent father's involved in implacable disputes with a mother who refuses to allow contact, for example. By the same token, I have also represented partners in divorce who are too terrified of poverty to even take advice in relation to divorce or finances - regrettably, these are not unusual cases and if it is the case that funding for these matters will be stripped then I can only assume that additional costs will ensue when the court system is backed up, or extra money will be, by necessity, directed to advice centres - often staffed by kindly, but unqualified/inexperienced advisors who will shy away from complex advice.
I agree with a change in the system - there is a great amount of money that could be saved within the family system but take advice from the family lawyers who know where the leaks are that need to be plugged - funding for parents who are proven to be implacable and hostile, for example.
Be realistic
Whether we like it or not the public perception of lawyers is that of fat cats creaming off large sums from the public purse, in some instances reported earnings from legal aid far exceed the salaries of NHS consultants and the total lawyers' bill for certain public inquiries are mind boggling. The profession collectively in recent decades has totally failed to manage its image, moving from an environment where income was not openly boasted about to one where every edition of certain journals overflows with profit tables etc. It doesn't matter that these relate mainly to the private sector, all lawyers become labelled as greedy and in it only for the money. Maybe if partners on sky high incomes donate a significant proportion to a lawyer run legal aid fund and thus prove that there is at least some vestage of ethics and idealism remaining within the profession. Donating a few hours of trainee time to pro bono activities isn't enough - YOUR money only will do.
Good lawyers
I trained as a solicitor at a london law centre. I work in Housing Law. I have a fixed salary and earn less a trainee manager at Mcdonalds. Yesterday i worked 9:30am to 8pm without a break to try and make sure a homeless client had somewhere to sleep that night. I succeeded.
I do not get paid overtime, my computer is slow and donated whilst my office was described by a journalist last week as damp and dilapidated. I do not own a car as i cannot afford it and i have little prospect of owning a house and yet i love my job as a legal aid lawyer and love being able to help people less fortunate than me.
When i read comments from people that i am money grabbing, unprincipled, selfish etc i really do despair because the typical legal aid lawyer is completely the opposite. The sad thing is its the client will hurt because of these cuts and i suspect when all the legal aid lawyers are gone so too will be the last of anyone left in society who actually cared.
Worse gone will be the only people who could have really made a difference, wanted to do so but lost their jobs because of prejudice, ideological driven cuts and a selfish disregard for the rights of the poor and the vulnerable.
The choices we make
I work in and used to believe in the principle behind Legal Aid, the gatekeepers to a free and equal society etc, if any of my kids say to me they want to become a Legal Aid lawyer I will disown them, I should have become a plumber. And then there's Enstein:
'The release of atom power has changed everything except or way of thinking; the solution to this problem lies in the heart of manking, if only I had known. I should have become a watchmaker.'
Ho hum, on with another 13 hour day . . . .
Legal Aid
Why should anyone pay privately to defend themselves in a criminal prosecution? Why not pay for defence and prosecution if convicted?
For those who don't know fees for legal aid work are fixed. That means they are set. It is not an hourly rate system.
I have always had difficulty with legal aid divorce because the fee is so low. I look forward to making more money out of divorce with legal aid abolished for divorce.
Driving around in Mercs - abuse of system
The structure of the path to qualification and permission to start a firm, the accreditation system and also the employment of unqualified paralegals to do legal work - all these have the effect of preventing individual lawyers from exercising independence. Whistle blowing on abuse of the legal aid system is unlikely in that context. Another problem is the motivations of people who want to become solicitors - at the moment the profession attracts people who want to make as much as money possible (that's the way the profession sells the job in the careers literature). We are in structural change which is likely to result in change in the profession. We need to start thinking in a statesman like way - i.e. what kind of legal profession do we need as a society - and not in a trade union way - i.e. how can we preserve our income. The legal big bang puts faith in the accountability of large organisations as an incentive to effective management (note that the behaviour of large accounting firms does not recommend this solution). Beefed-up pre-qualification training and no requirement for training contracts or a 3 year rule would allow independence and integrity. Many matters could be handled effectively by properly trained newly qualifieds straight from law school. A Chambers system might be advantageous. It would be a very good idea it seems to me to separate off litigation practice from insurance premium heavy non-contentious work.
Is anyone familiar with Jim
Is anyone familiar with Jim Morrison and the Doors? "this is the end my friend"
Legal Aid - The Future
I agree with the second poster as I am also another former legal aid solicitor I would agree that the system has been abused by the greed and megalomania of partners at the high street end of the profession for far too long. They have abused the system for their own means and often/usually expolited their underpaid staff for far too long as well. The only way forward is to reform the system to remove profit from legal aid in its entirety and operate GP style clinics on a public defender style service with fair pay and coniditons for all. The days of the "I'm not particularly bright but I've watched too many episodes of LA Law" equity partner in legal aid practice need to be brought swiftly to an end. Fortunately this government is now not only doing what is right but also what is fair.
The Clients
The focus on the impact on lawyers here is disgusting, what about the impact on clients. Where is the perspective, I am a paralegal at a firm helping people challenge the DWP to get their benefits entitlement and dread to think what would have happened to them without my firms help.
ACCESS TO JUSTICE IS A RIGHT NOT A PRIVILEGE.
Sympathy
Here's the headline from the Daily Mail, in case any lawyers thought they might have public opinion on their side:
******Kenneth Clarke calls a halt to the legal aid gravy train*********
And, in regard to an earlier post about tax on booze to pay for legal aid, just as I predicted, here is what the Daily Mail says about that idea:
*****The Law Society, which represents solicitors in England and Wales, said the legal aid proposals would prevent ordinary people getting ‘access to justice’.
Instead, the solicitors’ professional body called for a new tax on alcohol to cover the cost of legal aid.
The idea would mean that anyone buying a drink in a pub or a bottle of wine in a supermarket would be contributing to the earnings of lawyers.******
note the heavy tone: 'contributing to the earnings of lawyers'.....
as said before, the world is changing out there, lawyers have to move into new structures and adopt new practices to make money and have a good living - it is still possible, just not as it was before. The NHS has changed, schools have changed, and let's face it, a law firm is a private business at the end of the day - the people do not owe lawyers a living. And as far as access to justice is concerned - that's a fallacy - there is no access to justice for the average person - eg not rich or not poor enough for legal aid - the vast majority of law abiding people can just about pay for a conveyancer to move house and that's about all.
It's only legal aid lawyers who keep on about access to justice - as it really means access to legal aid payments .....for them.
Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1330028/Kenneth-Clarke-calls-hal...
...What gravy train???...the
...What gravy train???...the reason more and more publicly funded legal aid work is being taken up by the not-for-profit sector as opposed to private practice law firms is because there is no gravy train. "...lawyers need to move into new structure and adopt new practices to make money and have a good living"...that is exactly what they are doing leaving for the most part law centres, CAB and other organisations to take up the work on behalf of the most disadvantaged and marginalised in society...its the LSC who decided who is eligible for legal aid not us...while facing cuts in local authiority funding as well as the ever ending shifting of the goal posts by the LSC, working like dogs for a pittance....
Bernard
Are the new structures in education or health making for a better service, I do not think so. The fact that some people can't get access to legal aid while working is not the fault of those who are out of work it is the fault of the Government which arguably creates these gaps in entitlement in order to be divisive not just save money. A graduated system would be much more effective than wholesale cuts and booze taxes (what a joke!!).
I earned more money as a barman than in legal aid so I think you have bought the propaganda and you lack any true insight. If I wanted big money I would go and work in corporate/commercial law but I want to help people out. The reason the legal profession is victimised is because people see us caring more about lining our pockets than delivering a public service, this is not the case. All this talk of partners with Mercs is a straw man to knock down what about the thousands of legal aid solicitors on law society minimum wages after spending a small fortune on training?
Your tone would change should you find yourself falling on hard times and it would change very quickly!
LORD JUSTICE JACKSON'S REPORT
LORD JUSTICE JACKSON'S REPORT IS WRONG WRONG WRONG
What will happen when Claimants are asked to pay towards their own personal injury claims. Answer - the Claimants will no longer be interested in bringing claims.
What will happen when those who were previously entitled to legal aid are asked to finance their own cases. Answer - they will find alternative ways to get on with their lifes, that don't involve Solicitors.
What will happen to all the Solicitors (and their employees), Barristers and Judges when the legal aid cuts are made and Jackson's proposals are implemented. Answer - they will be out of work.
Thatcher's (or rather Lord Young's) idea of closing all the coal mines and steel works (indeed, ending all UK manufactering) in the 1980's cost the country far more in unemployment benefits than it ever saved the tax payer/ consumer. The cuts to the legal aid budget and the ending of fast track personal injury will have a similar effect.
Jackson and friend's - you are wrong wrong wrong!!!
Jackson is WRONG I agreed
Jackson is WRONG
I agreed completely with this comment. Additionally, when we are all out of work, there will be a huge loss of tax revenue for the government
Jackson is wrong!!!!! I also
Jackson is wrong!!!!!
I also agree with this post
The comments made highlight perfectly how access to justice will be harmed
To Ryan
Your idea about a graded system so that we can all have acess to justice is a great idea - the only problem is that the Gov does not have the money - and so, that is why litigation insurance was developed.
As to the belief legal aid lawyers are paid the same as a Barmen - there's two points there, 1) if you are really earning about £17,000 a year as a lawyer and you are happy with that, then so be it - and second I don't believe you. I don't believe that many legal aid lawyers really earn so little - crime barristers that are only 4 to 5 years in are making around £40-£50,000 PA (See Bar Council report on Future of the Bar) - which is not bad for a person in their late 20s, early 30s, considering average salaries for many people are about £25,000. Perhaps we need to get a proper analysis of legal aid lawyers' pay carried out? Be very interesting to see how many are really making poverty level wages as you suggest.....in fact you seem to suggest legal aid lawyers would probably qualify for legal aid themselves......which would be ironic.
Also, low earnings in such a major sector as the law, reflects more badly on you as a provider - the legal market is worth billions in this country, you don't have to work in a top City firm to make a living, you just need to not expect the State to owe you a living. You seem to have the classic, 'I am owed by society for the service I provide' ideology stuck in your mind.
And as to not being wealthy and needing legal aid, well, that may be the case. But ironically again, I cannot afford legal help now - classic Middle Class Poverty, as they call it, so it would actually be easier to gain legal aid if I was broke.
Any way, this discussion is academic, change is coming, better get ready.
Bernard... a riposte
The Government does have enough money it has just elected to spend it on quangos whose purpose is to serve businesses and on interbnational aid to rebuild the countries they have had a hand in destroying! That is another argument in itself but suffice to say I dont accept you opinion on it.
I am currently a paralegal and did earn more as a barman! I would happily accept £17k a year to help the poor, what i am saying is there should be balance in the opinion becuase the majority of people in legal aid have chosen to earn little money over other astronomical wages, if you point out barristers on £40-50k (we are talking people at the top of the scale) I must point out some of the people at the bottom of the scale in my office toiling away on £11k as paralegals. A balanced view would be nice rather than veering to one an extreme to prove your point (or disprove it as the case may be).
Of course I feel owed by society I trained long and hard to serve society, who would I not feel owed. Social workers do, policemen do, nurses do, civil servants do. I want a fair wage based on my education (4 A's, 2:1 (hons) LLB, LPC), skills and contribution. I see no fault with that ideology I am afraid just as you see no fault in drawing a wage from your employer who you provide a service to.
It should be easier to gain legal aid if you are broke, just lay off the houmous and olives for a couple of months and that Middle Class Povert will soon be alleviated ;).
This discussion is academic but I am enjoying it, the change is coming so I am applying like mad for training contracts at commercial firms but I do hate to have to leave my beliefs and clients behind.
Really....not
Just a quick one to say to Ryan, the Gov really does not have the money, this really isn't political posturing. The current budget deficit is 63% of the UK's GDP - we're talking in the Trillion of Pounds here. I.e. we are broke, and only narrowly avoided seeing our credit rating downgraded to the point where the cuts would have been much worse. Also, if you do join a City firm, you can carry on doing pro bono work. Any road, good luck.
Ryan for President
At last, someone who knows what they are talking about and has all the answers!
Why on earth should anyone get paid a decent salary to advise (and pretty much help all round), people who have no / little education (failed by the state?), a dysfunctional background, have been discriminated against, have been victims of an abuse of power (it does happen, really it does) maybe even have a profound disability (get rid of them? Let them fend for themselves, they may not vote / pay taxes so who cares?)?
'I am owed by society for the service I provide'! You buffoon, it's those who can't fend for themselves who are 'owed' by society, your opinions are dangerous and I fear, increasingly popular.
NB the avaerage Legal Aid Salary is £25k, just below Sewage Plant Operator (nothing wrong with that although probably doesn't cost 35k in education for the privelege, probably has working hours that follow the EC directive, pension, healthcare and nore than 20 days leave) and just above Civil Sevice Executive Officer (as above). If in doubt see the attached spreadsheet.
https://spreadsheets.google.c
https://spreadsheets.google.com/ccc?key=tD4F8x73jNXTW3Q-uhrRm9g#gid=0
Bernard... a riposte
Apologies for the atrocious spelling, it ill befits a man of my qualifications!
What are the chances....
..........of the government backing down if negative feedback is received (as I hope it will be!)?
By the way, as a benefits caseworker working for CAB I find it shocking that half of the people posting here are welcoming the proposed removal of legal help for benefits and most debt cases. It won't just affect "greedy" lawyers which work in SWL (which I'm sure are only a minority). The cuts will also force those CABx which are currently able to offer casework in benefits and debt to make mass redundancies and provide only a basic advice service to clients which is not enough when most of our clients are illiterate, foregneirs or have mental health problems and can't DIY on complex matters.
Proportionality
When do we get the consultation on whether the costs of so many Government Ministers, MPs and all the associated expenses of their aides, PR gurus, secretaries and other advisors are proportionate?
Thought not.
Equity Partners - The real reason salaries are low in legal aid!
Its not only that the government funds legal aid at £50-£70 an hour which is quite generous really.
How many legal aid solicitors are paid the real rate of £50 an hour gross? Your true rate?
None because the greed and megalomania of the partners takes 80% of the earrnings leaving the poor staff member very poor indeed.
Do not blame the government blame your equity partner now. They are taking £40 and leaving you with £10.
You'd be better off on the tills at Aldi but that is not the fault of the Government but your equity partner.
Ask them for a freelance contract now where you get 80% of the fees and the firm 20%
That is the future of legal aid for all practitioners
LEGAL AID CUTS
I am disturbed by the proposed cuts to Legal Aid particularly in the field of Social Security Law [Welfare Benefits]. I am of the view that the cuts, unless carefully thought through, would leave several already vulnerable Clients without the means to challenge unjust decisions.
In my view, the government is simply eager to make savings at all cost. There is probably no justification for cuts in funding in areas, such as Social Security law and debt, which affect/afflict the most vulnerable in the community.
Social Security law is complex and I say so even though I am legally qualified with several years of practise behind me. One can therefore imagine how overwhelming it must be for those lay people who have to grapple with untenable decisions made by Social Security Administration in what is also a convoluted and slow system.
I must say that the most vulnerable in the community would most certainly be left without a voice!
Legal Aid salaries
I found the comments interesting regarding legal aid lawyers salaries and equity partners. perhaps this is what has been wrong with the legal aid system since inception. Perhaps the State should bring legal aid in house, i.e nationalise the service.
There could be regional legal aid centres staffed by lawyer/paralegal civil servants dealing with the much reduced case loads that will result from the cuts. Imagine the savings. One computer system, one standard stationary order, one accounting department etc etc.
if the proposals are implimented as stands, many firms who have a significant exposure to legal aid will have to close, as the firms who got out a few years ago will have moved on, invested in IT, branding and will have taken the bulk of private and commercial work in their respective areas.
Does the right hand know what the left hand is doing?
Does any one know what the proposals are for CLACs, which are being set up across the country and, as I understand it, being funded by Local Authorities and the Legal Services Commission, to provide legal advice in the areas of -
•benefits and tax credits
•debt
•employment
•housing
•community care
•family law
Would it be wrong to suggest that was a BIG waste of money if the Green Paper is passed?
(And, I should add, I am wholly against the cuts and very much hope that we are able to mobilise in response to the proposals. It's all very well us whingeing, but I have no doubt that there is very strong evidence that the most vulnerable in society will be denied access to justice, and that the government would find that they are not allowing compliance with the human rights act - Articles 6 and 8 spring to mind, along with Articles 1 and 2 of the protocol - how for example can the right to a fair trial be upheld if 1 party, who can afford it, is represented by a trained lawyer and the other party is in person, illiterate and has a mental illness?)
Protectionism
We live in a capitalist society where the market should dictate what rates are paid. Why do lawyers want a rigged market - or rather they only want a fixed market where prices are fixed nice and high for them to enjoy the good life. Open up to compeition and bury the closed-shop dinosaur that is the legal profession, along with all its pomp and over-inflated self-worth. Most people could do the job of a lawyer and it is increasingly money for old rope - punters can go online and get free legal advice if they know where to look. Wills, probate, conveyancing, litigation...its all there. Solicitors are throwing their toys out of the pram because they see their livelihoods slipping away and the final days of legal aid will inevitably attract the same objections from lawyers. They will of course dress it up as 'an unconstitutional attack on freedom' and lament on about the injustice of it all fro their clients, etc but first and foremost they are concenred about their livelihoods. They would have some credibility if they just said so.
fait accompli
I'm afraid the point is solicitors need to accept the reality. Fast.
FACTS
HM Government will NOT back down.
Cuts will be made to legal aid.
Alternative business structures will capture work from regional small firms.
Magic Circle high end work will continue unaffected.
Accountants etc will likely soon move into the probate market - wholesale.
Essentially:-
In two years time many older solicitors will have retired because of the new reality.
The number of firms will have shrunk considerably.
By this time the "excess" solicitors will have found alternative employment.
Unfortunately, solicitors have benefited from a closed shop with regulated activities (e.g. probate) and the most generous legal aid system on planet Earth. Neither of these situations is sustainable or fair.
I have sympathy for many good friends in the legal profession but all solicitors need to wake up and smell the coffee.
If any young people are following these stories please think very carefully before embarking on a very expensive law degree. The chances are you will face incredible competition for a job. It may not be worth it.
The New Reality
I agree (to an extent) with the above post and I like the Orwellian "the New Reality" slant - sort of like an extreme New Labour initiative for the massess to be happy.
You are right of course, that the legal profession just does not live up to all it claims to be; if it could it would have sorted out the horrendous lack of diversity in the profession years ago but it has failed and that is, in part, due to it being traditional and not welcoming change (as can bee seen in these posts). It is so full of itself it is a joke - lecturing the elected government on fairness having consistently failed to get its own house in order. The hipocraccy is staggering.
For all you young players watching out there the legal profession is not what it claims to be, not by a long shot so beware. As above, spend your money on something else.
Equity Partners
With regard to the comment on the above, I have never understood why law firms expect their employees to find the work, do the work, and then give the firm most of the profit from it!
In reality, the legal profession is utterly archaic and has survived on the promise held out of "equity" which has usually not been forthcoming.
Definitely time that the Augean stables were cleansed.
The situaton
Create meaning on your life
The Rotting Corpse
Great! The reason you all face the threat of the ABSs is that New Labour government knew how to deal with solicitors, there being no solidarity whatsoever in the profession. All New Labour had to do was to appeal to the greed of city partners by offering them plc Status and outside investment (ie the chance to sell off assets created by their predecessors and capitalise on many decades and sometimes centuries of goodwill). This ensured that the Law Society would back the move but just in case they cavilled, New Labour got its own people into senior positions in the Law Society in order to lead the sheep on the Law Society Council to the slaughter.
Now we have endless posts from assistants in solicitors firms moaning about the behaviour of partners in legal aid firms. This is because some stupid people think that they have a future in a profession that only pays them £11,000.00 per annum as a paralegal or £20,000.00 as an assistant solicitor. What on earth is wrong with you? You’d get more cleaning toilets or mini cabbing. There is no future as a paralegal or assistant in a legal aid firm. The only legal aid firms that are going to survive are criminal firms and because of competitive tendering the butter is going to be spread very thin. There are going to be a few partners and a lot of assistants and paralegals.
In truth, the days of the Mercedes driving legal aid partners are gone. The last lot in our area went down the tubes 2 months ago. Skodas are now the order of the day.
If some of our so called leaders in the criminal law community had curbed their greed and agreed to have their firms folded into a public defender system five years ago, then we would have had a chance to fight this and keep going but there is no chance of fighting this now. A lot of criminal legal aid firms will go to the wall when they fail to win contracts.
The Law Society can bleat on about Access to Justice and the deprivation of legal aid but they are being breathtakingly hypocritical.
A solicitor whose firm has been intervened has property removed from him on mere suspicion of dishonesty (the same mens rea for arrest) or less. That solicitor has his right to earn a living withdrawn from him by the suspension of his practising certificate (if he is suspended on suspicion of dishonesty). He is then expected to appeal within 6 days and without legal aid. A process that has only succeeded once and then been effectively reversed on appeal. The Law Society can then send him bills for the intervention and bankrupt him before he appears at the SDT with no legal aid and no money to pay for representation. These are the actions of the body that is now berating the government about legal aid cuts.
No wonder this profession is in its death throes. All Ken Clarke has to do is blow on the rotting corpse and it will fall over and meanwhile youngsters are queuing up to get on board the Titanic because our lazy journalists, who make soviet era communist hacks look unbiased and competent are telling them that the legal streets are paved with gold. That is, of course, after their extremely otherworldly teachers have told them they can do anything they like.
We are due to do a role swap with India. They will have consumerism and full employment and we will have hundreds of unemployed graduates and a distant memory of what was once “The Rule of Law”. Because once incomes fall to a level where people can’t sustain their lifestyles corruption, of all sorts, will set in. By then the Law Society and solicitors will be a distant memory and people will not believe the world we once lived in or that a generation who was given everything on a plate threw it all away.
The Rotting Corpse
Great! The reason you all face the threat of the ABSs is that New Labour government knew how to deal with solicitors, there being no solidarity whatsoever in the profession. All New Labour had to do was to appeal to the greed of city partners by offering them plc Status and outside investment (ie the chance to sell off assets created by their predecessors and capitalise on many decades and sometimes centuries of goodwill). This ensured that the Law Society would back the move but just in case they cavilled, New Labour got its own people into senior positions in the Law Society in order to lead the sheep on the Law Society Council to the slaughter.
Now we have endless posts from assistants in solicitors firms moaning about the behaviour of partners in legal aid firms. This is because some stupid people think that they have a future in a profession that only pays them £11,000.00 per annum as a paralegal or £20,000.00 as an assistant solicitor. What on earth is wrong with you? You’d get more cleaning toilets or mini cabbing. There is no future as a paralegal or assistant in a legal aid firm. The only legal aid firms that are going to survive are criminal firms and because of competitive tendering the butter is going to be spread very thin. There are going to be a few partners and a lot of assistants and paralegals.
In truth, the days of the Mercedes driving legal aid partners are gone. The last lot in our area went down the tubes 2 months ago. Skodas are now the order of the day.
If some of our so called leaders in the criminal law community had curbed their greed and agreed to have their firms folded into a public defender system five years ago, then we would have had a chance to fight this and keep going but there is no chance of fighting this now. A lot of criminal legal aid firms will go to the wall when they fail to win contracts.
The Law Society can bleat on about Access to Justice and the deprivation of legal aid but they are being breathtakingly hypocritical.
A solicitor whose firm has been intervened has property removed from him on mere suspicion of dishonesty (the same mens rea for arrest) or less. That solicitor has his right to earn a living withdrawn from him by the suspension of his practising certificate (if he is suspended on suspicion of dishonesty). He is then expected to appeal within 6 days and without legal aid. A process that has only succeeded once and then been effectively reversed on appeal. The Law Society can then send him bills for the intervention and bankrupt him before he appears at the SDT with no legal aid and no money to pay for representation. These are the actions of the body that is now berating the government about legal aid cuts.
No wonder this profession is in its death throes. All Ken Clarke has to do is blow on the rotting corpse and it will fall over and meanwhile youngsters are queuing up to get on board the Titanic because our lazy journalists, who make soviet era communist hacks look unbiased and competent are telling them that the legal streets are paved with gold. That is, of course, after their extremely otherworldly teachers have told them they can do anything they like.
We are due to do a role swap with India. They will have consumerism and full employment and we will have hundreds of unemployed graduates and a distant memory of what was once “The Rule of Law”. Because once incomes fall to a level where people can’t sustain their lifestyles corruption, of all sorts, will set in. By then the Law Society and solicitors will be a distant memory and people will not believe the world we once lived in or that a generation who was given everything on a plate threw it all away.
re: The Rotting Corpse
I think I speak for may of the people in my firm, in Welfare Benefits at least, who do not care about the wage we are paid we care about helping people, if I cared about my wage I would be back behind the bar in a heart beat. It is money grubbers who have sent this profession down a slippery slope, I hope to catch on to the last train out of town in terms of legal work as I genuinely love it and love helping people, as do my colleagues.
The older people in the profession should hang their heads in shame as their attitude (as seen in previous posts and in general) and complacency means that the road to a proper fulfilling career in law (i.e not a customer services advisor in a call centre dispensing with legal advice) is particularly treacherous. A lot of you are a disgrace to this once noble profession, so long and thanks for the mess!
Look Across the pond to the States for your answer
HM Government has given the clearest indicator to date that legal aid will only be available for cases where a persons liberty is in jeoprody i.e. crime or mental health and that public funding will not be made availabel for any other matters - FACT.
The system will result in a basic public defender style of system akin to the states where only a few hard working lawyers are public defenders work in crim defence for a pittance. Wages will be akin to a check out assistant make no mistake about it, you will be working for less than those on the checkouts at Aldi.
I would advise all solicitors working in any area of legal aid to leave immediately. Its your livelihoods that are at stake and you will within 1-2 years be worth £6 an hour. There will be no police station call out monies etc to rely on.
Do the best that you can do for yourself and leave legal aid and re-train in probate, personal injury or clinical negligence. There are futures in these areas clin neg is reverting from legal aid to contingency fees and will result in a good living look at the states for evidence.
For your own sake if you are working in legal aid now leave and re-train in PI/Clin Neg or Probate/Wealth management on the non-contentious side.
Its your future, your house, car, family finances that are at stake. Being vocational is what has got you into this mess be professional for once and join those where the grass really is greener.
You can only make the right and professional decision to disband all legal aid practice with immediate effect.
The alternative will be poverty in financial and professional terms.
Look Across the pond to the
Look Across the pond to the States for your answer...
Gosh I was just sitting here trying to squeeze in a 5 minute lunch when I came across your comment.
I am a trainee solicitor due to qualify at a legal aid firm. I entered family law with so much passion and enthusiasm to do good and help the disadvantaged. Yes I could jump ship to probate as I have past experience in the area (including in the US) but I remind myself why I entered law in the first place. It was never for money, a car or large house. I have helped people save thousands in inheritance tax and I have helped families that have completely broken down, mothers who have been raped, battered and abused. I have to say I receive more job satisfaction having helped the latter.
So I will continue on working to help the disadvantaged so that one day when I do leave this short life, I can look back and consider that what I have done was truly worth it and that I made a difference in a child's life. The size of my estate will be irrelevant.
My great grandfather fought in WW1 together with his 3 brothers (2 were killed in action). Do you ever think it crossed his mind to jump ship and take the easy way out? No he didn't.
If we are to look to the States for the answer, try Massachusetts. Their legal aid is funded by a system whereby the Interest on Lawyers Trust Accounts (IOLTA) are fed into the system.
http://www.masslegalhelp.org/children-and-families
Now, back to my apple...
Look Across the pond to the States for your answer
HM Government has given the clearest indicator to date that legal aid will only be available for cases where a persons liberty is in jeoprody i.e. crime or mental health and that public funding will not be made availabel for any other matters - FACT.
The system will result in a basic public defender style of system akin to the states where only a few hard working lawyers are public defenders work in crim defence for a pittance. Wages will be akin to a check out assistant make no mistake about it, you will be working for less than those on the checkouts at Aldi.
I would advise all solicitors working in any area of legal aid to leave immediately. Its your livelihoods that are at stake and you will within 1-2 years be worth £6 an hour. There will be no police station call out monies etc to rely on.
Do the best that you can do for yourself and leave legal aid and re-train in probate, personal injury or clinical negligence. There are futures in these areas clin neg is reverting from legal aid to contingency fees and will result in a good living look at the states for evidence.
For your own sake if you are working in legal aid now leave and re-train in PI/Clin Neg or Probate/Wealth management on the non-contentious side.
Its your future, your house, car, family finances that are at stake. Being vocational is what has got you into this mess be professional for once and join those where the grass really is greener.
You can only make the right and professional decision to disband all legal aid practice with immediate effect.
The alternative will be poverty in financial and professional terms.
Happiness?
Maybe the government would be better investing the money they will be wasting on the forthcoming "Happiness" Census in improving our Legal Aid System!!
Too true
As above, regrettably.
Lord Jackson is WRONG
The Defendant offers £1,850.00 for a 12 month whiplash claim, Claimant Solicitor advises Defendant insurer its worth £2,750.00 for PI. Defendant maintains £1,850.00. Proceedings issued, Claimant awarded £2,750.00 at Disposal Hearing. Costs awarded at Summary Assessment £7,500.00 (including 100% success fee).
The above is a typical example as to why costs increase due to the Defendant's conduct. Had the Defendant settled the claim at the outset, costs would be in the region of £2,250.00.
The insurers dont need to rely on Jackson to save themselves money, they simply need to deal with the many conduct issues they have in-house.
But, lets blame it all on the Claimant's Solicitors...
As above
The Defendant denies liability (on a defective work equipment case!) causing fairly modest facial (about 1cm) scarring to a man with several scars already. Not the biggest value claim.
They make ridiculous claims such as he was not their employee but a 'labour only contractor', the equipment was not equipment, even though it was snapped in half it was not 'defective', they raise contrib, etc.
Claimant Solicitor advises Defendant insurer they should be conceding liability and its worth about £2,500. Defendant maintains denial and invites issue of proceedings.
Extensive evidence taken from four fellow employees, contracts of employment, etc all obtained. Plastic Surgeons Report and photos disclosed early doors. Defendant insurer continues to deny.
Proceedings issued. Defendant Solicitor tells me 'without prejudice' she has advised them to settle but they won't listen. Case tracked to trial.
I suspect someone has reviewed the file pre-trial and rail roaded the responsible employee at the insurance co.
2 weeks before trial Defendant sends fax admitting liability. We tell them we'll take £2000 to avoid the trial on the issue of quantum only, they refuse, on the insurers instructions.
Trial bundles prepared on quantum only basis, Counsel instructed, etc.
Two days before trial Defendant begins to panic and makes offers of £1000, £1500 and £1750 - all rejected. We continue to say "we'll take £2k".
Day before trial Defendant offers £2000 which the Claimant accepts and trial vacated.
Having been served with the bill the Defendant offers £15000 in costs. We request £20000. They reject this.
Costs awarded at Detailed Assessment £23,500.00 plus costs of the DA.
The above is also a typical example as to why costs increase due to the Defendant's conduct. If the Defendant had settled the claim at the start, costs would be in the region of £3000.00.
This annoys me. I pay insurance premiums like the rest of the country. I know why the costs are as high as they are. 9 times out of 10 it is Defendant conduct in contesting issues they should accept.
I agree that the insurers don't need to rely on Jackson to save themselves money. This is why we have the Pre-Action Protocols. If only they could abide by them.
I agree with the above. If they deal with their many conduct issues in-house they'd save a fortune.
They also need to be told that using unqualfied, untrained 'claims handlers' who do not know what they are doing is a false economy.