Law Society launches legal aid campaign for the public
The Law Society is to launch a high-profile campaign, ‘Sound off for justice’, this week – aimed at harnessing public opposition to legal aid cuts.
The initiative will seek to raise awareness of what the cuts could mean for members of the public, in advance of the 14 February deadline for responses to the government’s legal aid green paper, which will slash £350m from the legal aid budget.
A specially designed website for the campaign will go live today, with a wider launch on Friday.
Members of the public will be invited to ‘sound off’ by signing up to the campaign via the website.
The site will warn that ‘over 30 million British people are about to be silenced by the government’ by losing their right to legal representation, and will say, ‘don’t be silenced in court’.
The website will ask members of the public to sign up to the Law Society’s manifesto by agreeing with three fundamental statements: that there is a right to legal representation; that no one should be denied legal protection because they cannot afford it; and that everyone should be able to challenge unfair decisions by government, businesses, institutions and anyone else.
The site will also give case study examples of people who would be adversely affected by the legal aid cuts.
A Law Society spokeswoman said the Society aimed to achieve maximum press coverage for the campaign.
- Visit the Sound Off For Justice website
Comments
Do as we say not as we do
"that no one should be denied legal protection because they cannot afford it". So, I can take it that the Law Society will provide legal aid for insolvent solicitors facing the Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal. Oh no, I forgot that old Law Society motto "Do as I say, not as I do." How do you expect governments to honour principles which are so blatantly breached by the Law Society and SRA? What a sick joke.
To quote the Duc De Rochefoucauld, who was famous for his maxims in the 17th century
~Hypocrisy is the homage which vice pays to virtue. ~
Is that you Alan, well said!
Is that you Alan, well said!
Brilliant plan by the law
Brilliant plan by the law society!!! I think it is about time the very people who will get affected get involved to fight for survival of lega aid! Great stuff!
it would help if I learned
it would help if I learned how to spell ...people who will be affected by the cuts to legal aid should get involved to fight for it's survival...!! Otherwise, it will just be lawyers who are fighting for their jobs etc...that what I meant!
Cuts in Legal Aid
It is hard to believe that the British public are so placid over all this. Perhaps if we adopted the Egyptians and Greek methods of challenging the state they might not keep denying access to justice. I hope the day comes where people get more lawfully connected, instead of just being satisfied with temporary pleasures. It does nothing for the generations to come. Legal aid was established to help those in need. To the last gent? who goes on about insolvent Solicitors, well maybe here should be the first cuts as it has often been those within the profession cleaning out the legal aid / fund pot for their own financial gain that has caused some of the most severe cuts in the past. Community virtue over Utility would be nice. Many might consider this in the dark ages. Should justice actually be dependent on economics anyway? The market based approach simply presents too many obstacles to the search for truth and justice.
As for the coalition and even Labour and the other idiot ideologies that havent worked in post war England, lets try something new. If it dont work lets say twice... lets just ban it! Give someone other ideology a chance. Legal aid should do what it was first intended to do. Not to be monopolized upon but to help those in need. when will we ever learn?
Lost Ways
Typically vague meanderings of someone who doesn't realise that there is now and never has been any Legal Aid for insolvent solicitors at the SDT. Typical of some solicitors and indeed, judges, who think that all solicitors are really chiselling crooks. No chance of us winning any battles if this attitude continues and what is worse, no chance of the vulnerable getting assistance in future when the law is handed over to big business, who will show you what profit making really is. You and many others have lost their way. A sharp run in with Narodnya Militia or the SS would have convinced you of the value of our system over many others but as it is, you do not know what is being thrown away.
If the Law Soc had challenged
If the Law Soc had challenged the abuses of the legal aid scheme earlier (eg. QC's milking £500k p/a from long-running trials) then perhaps the public perception of legal aid lawyers would be a tad better.
Far too late, waste of time, save our membership money...
It`s not too late, but the
It`s not too late, but the nagging thought does occur time and again...legal aid rates have not increased in 13 years and have obviously gone down in real terms given inflation . What other workplace organisation would tolerate that state of affairs ?
Hanging Seperately
The essential problem is that solicitors have collaborated with every scheme put forward by the Legal Services Commission and its predecessors from franchising to contracting and onwards.
Do you remember franchising? We were told that this would not lead to the exclusion of some firms from Legal Aid then along came contracting and lo and behold firms were excluded.
It was only in the mid noughties when solicitors got restive and it looked as if major strike action would be taken. The government’s response was to inform the Law Society that it would be referred to the Office of Fair Trading if it called for a strike. The compliant Law Society meekly surrendered.
The Bar was much more robust. When the government did the same to them I am reliably informed that the Minister making the threat was told by bar leaders that it was not feasible to refer all the barristers for prosecution and so the threat was an empty one.
The result of all this was that the bar retained relatively high rates of pay for Legal Ai,d compared to the solicitors.
One major problem was the huge number of New Labour sympathisers in the Law Society, which led, at one time, to Law Society officials stating that competitive tendering was supported by the Law Society. This bit of ridiculous hubris was stamped on very fast.
However, I am sure that the present government is alive to the divisions in the profession which will be opened up by competitive tendering in Legal Aid. Large firms keen to stab the small guys.
Linda Lee, current President of the Law Society and generally on the side of the angels, has called for unity in the profession but I am sure the new government will get round to a “divide and rule” policy in legal aid.
Solicitors are vulnerable to this type of policy because solicitors have no real collective sense of responsibility. That has led to the fall of this profession and has allowed successive governments to whittle away at Legal Aid. This failure cannot be blamed on the Law Society alone. Self-interest rules in this profession.
That old saying “Those who do not hang together hang separately” has never been more apt.
Couldn't agree more. I also
Couldn't agree more. I also remember that many solicitors were oppposed to the idea of franchising when it was first introduced, and some suggested that the profession should refuse to co-operate. Ironically many solicitors chose to go down the franchising route because they got an extra £1 per hour, and thought they would get a competitive advantage over their rivals. Perhaps solicitors should also ask themselves why the LSC should pay better hourly rates, when solicitors are more than willing to work for less? Legal Aid Solicitors have sown the seeds of their own destruction, and only have themselves to blame for their current situation.
Lets hang as sheep, not
Lets hang as sheep, not lambs.
Freudian slip?
"Lets hang as sheep, not lambs"
Far too little, far too late.
Far too little, far too late.
It is a great idea to hold a
It is a great idea to hold a campaign in order to get the public involved with this issue. However, it does seem to be too late, with only a week before the deadline. I will check out the site when it goes live, and it will be interesting to see how many people get involved with the campaign.
Such an potential source of
Such an potential source of influence, and yes, as other commentators have said above, potentially far too little, and certainly far too late. I wonder why it is that the Law Society has intervened to assist with public opinion only at such a late stage? The Government had outlined its drastic legal aid cuts last year! Now with just days before the consultation date deadline, I wonder what exactly these steps will achieve. However, that is not to say these steps are not needed. Better late than never.
Great idea
.. only problem is that most members of the tax paying public are sick and tired of their hard-earned taxes funding bogus asylum seekers' appeal after appeal, feckless spongers who are separating arguing over a toaster, habitual criminals on their 30th burglary/assault charge, benefits cheats trying to remain "on the sick" so they can keep their free cars and MPs who have been on the fiddle. Bring on the cuts, the system has been abused for years - I know, I worked in it in an earlier life and remember "the good old days" of the Green Forms (abused out of esxistence). The gravy train has hit the buffers, live with it.
No Great Loss
Yes, why don't we just lock up anyone who is arrested permanently? It would save a lot of time and money. The latter being the only thing that is important in this society. After all, we have to get ready for the post-American world, where liberal ideas of justice will become deeply unfashionable. You tell us you used to work in Legal Aid. Presumably, you couldn't make enough from Green Forms to make ends meet and left. You do not seem to be a loss to the profession.
to no great loss
.. no self interest on your part I suppose? I met enough undeserving recipients of public funds to determine it wasn't for me. You obviously turn a blind eye to the abuse and waste of public funds. Oh I forgot, all legal aid practitioners are altruists (well at least until their house gets burgled/car gets nicked). Like I say, gravy train meet buffers. About time too.
Yes, I'm with Anon 20.31. I
Yes, I'm with Anon 20.31. I well remember in the early '80s solicitors arguing over 50 quids worth of second hand curtains on legal aid-in other words about 80quids worth of costs!
If this had been private this wouldn't have happened or if it had I wouldn't have been paying for it!
Vestiges of Legal Aid
Good to know whose side you and Anon 20:31 are on. Still smarting over being told to go down the police station at 3am and having to kow tow to a a habitual juvenile criminal, no doubt.
I am afraid I have very little time for people who couldn't hack it in Legal Aid and then return to give us garbled reminisences of firms making supposed fortunes from 1980s practises long since abandoned.
Linda Lee called for unity and it is awful to read carping when the profession is in peril. Go back to what you do now and do not undermine our efforts to save the few vestiges of Legal Aid that remain.
Yes, the side of not having
Yes, the side of not having my taxes spent on lawyers ramping up their bills for no good reason!
Obviously the extreme cases are the exception but certainly the system is broke and needs fixing.
Nowadays the bigger ramp is the "hourly rate", with the number of hours being massive-and damn all of consequence being done in most of them! This applies to both legal aid and law generally.
Hourly rates and legal aid
There may well be a debate to be had in relation to hourly rates (and there has been plenty written on this site recently about the very topic), but as far as legal aid is concerned hourly rates are rarely used nowadays, the system being fixed or graduated fees. In the instances where hourly rates are used they are now so very low that any criticism of those rates is simply misinformed.
Yes you guys at the Law
Yes you guys at the Law Society, you could have jumped on board earlier, but any contribution towards fighting this campaign against social injustice must be welcomed. With less than 7 days to go - people from all directions need to make their feelings known - in loud and clear terms.
You Don't Get It
It is not about the money or politics. It is about the fact that when you represent an innocent man or woman they are alone in the police station or courtroom. You are their only friend and their fate rests in your hands and if you get it wrong they will pay the price forever. It is as simple as that. That is why we have to defend Legal Aid.
"You are their only friend
"You are their only friend and their fate rests in your hands..."
Yes, but does it make a profit ? Will it please the shareholders ? Surely selfless volunteers can abandon their families to help strangers in police stations ? Surely they are only there in the first place because they are criminals ?
...such is the rancid, amoral vocabulary of economic neoliberalism we are about to be plunged into...
Just something for you to
Just something for you to think about.
When you find yourself alone, in a dank Police cell that smells of vomit and urine, in the early hours of the morning, with the prospect of being charged with a criminal offence looming in front of you, would you want the selfless volunteer to assist you, or the legal professional who will represent your interests to the best of their ability, when everyone else in the Police Station do not share the Lawyer's views on civil libertirs and simply want you charged? Perhaps in those circumstances you would be less dismissive and more aware of the real issue here, which is the endless ebbing away at access to justice.
But what would the members of the public care? You are only there because you are a criminal.
What happened to innocent
What happened to innocent until proven guilty?
I am not a practising
I am not a practising solicitor but feel it utterly shameful and a cause for concern that on a public forum persons in this profession can make such bigoted and ill-judged remarks.
I can only see "bigoted ill
I can only see "bigoted ill judged remarks" here against vulnerable people and solicitors trying to help them, clearly prompted by the "musings" of the gutter press. I hope you mean the same...
The problem with those bigots
The problem with those bigots commenting here is one of stupor of experience and vision. Most who offer this type of narrow minded opinion can easily do the six or eight years studying at University... nice surroundings.Subsidized foods ect. But could they hack six to eight years living at the bottom of the social class ladder, growing up rough as old boots, like many offenders do... The answer is no, not in a month of sundays... Here it is quite obvious that your bottom of the social ladder scumbag could with just a little training, about six to eight years, quite supercede your top of the social ladder scumbag quite easily if he put his mind to it.
With only about six to eight years training in a nice cosy academic facility the bottom of the ladder scumbag could potentially reach the standards of which the top of the ladder scumbag boasts. But will the top of the ladder scum bag ever have the guts to spend the equal time in the experience of the lower scumbag. Of course not. So it begs the question of where this type of bigotted rubbish oozes from. Ignorance perhaps.
Just because a man is poor does not mean he has no right, or no need for the desires of his often excessively affluent bigot counterpart. Both will watch and drool over the same sports vehicles. Both gets it how he can. Yes one is classed legal and one is not.
Its perhaps a pity that the report of the task force on public legal education: Developing capable citizens; The role of Public legal education, in July 2007 didnt get a better media coverage. Get some more street level experienced people interested in law too with a more mature and generic outlook for the future of society where it matters. Person centred rather than Cash centred.
Anything that assists getting
Anything that assists getting the clear message out to the public of the impact of the proposed changes should be welcomed with open arms.
I fear that if the green paper is implemented in full there will be a wave of shock and horror from the general public when they seek legal representation to be told that “sorry there no legal aid for X any more” . This will be followed, with the exception of those with means, by the awful realisation that they will be entering a court room without any legal representation, advice or assistance and expected to conduct their case in person.
The recent debate in the House of Commons on 3rd February 2011 highlighted the stark nature of the green papers proposals and this is perhaps best summarised by the speech of Mr Andy Slaughter (Hammersmith) (Lab):
“It is appropriate that Members on both sides of the House speak in defence of legal aid, because it was on the recommendation of a Committee headed by a Conservative peer Lord Rushcliffe that legal aid was first proposed in 1943, and it was a Labour Government and a Labour Attorney-General, Sir Hartley Shawcross, who piloted the Legal Aid and Advice Act 1949 through Parliament. The Secretary of State for Justice says that he wishes to return to the original intent of legal aid, but the original intent of legal aid is captured in paragraph 40 of Magna Carta:
"To no one will we sell, to no one deny or delay right or justice."
Those were the very words that Sir Hartley Shawcross had in mind when he said on Second Reading of the 1949 Act:
"It is a Bill which will open the doors of the courts freely to all persons who may wish to avail themselves of British justice without regard to the question of their wealth or ability to pay."-[ Official Report, 15 December 1948; Vol. 459, c. 1221.]
The Government's Green Paper presents their plans as a return to the founding intent of legal aid, but they are in fact the exact opposite. They will remove the average person's ability to seek justice.”
Irrespective of the public view (and this is not always positive) of the legal profession the stark fact is that the proposals will mean that we are heading for a justice system that means, in effect, “No representation without the means to pay.”
Turkeys and Christmas
However you look at this, there is a huge element of self interest. One would hardly expect those whose income is dependent on public funds to support any cuts in that funding as it will have a disproportionate impact upon their income. Anyone with an ounce of common sense must see the mess this country is in financially such that a drastic and immediate cut in public spending is required. The problem is that no one wants those necessary cuts to impact upon their personal financial well being.The simple fact is, like many other aspects of the hitherto grossly inflated public spending burden which has engulfed the UK over the past few decades, the country simply cannot afford the current level of legal aid spending. Cuts must be made to the benefist of the many, no matter how that impacts upon the few (and by the few I mean legal aid lawyers) who are permanently in a win/win situation - ie they get paid whether their client wins of loses. That win/win situation leads to a " have a go mentality" - it doesn't cost anything, you may as well have a go no matter what the merits are. Who cares, it costs the oppressed hard working tax payer who funds all/receives nothing, not the unemployed beneficiary of such largese.
You get what you pay for
Whilst professional in the public sector saw huge rises in salary and bonuses since 1997, criminal defence solicitors have seen no rise (except a pound or two on an hourly rate in 2001 ) and in real terms, a huge fall in their income. We are now paid less than civilian custody detention assistants in some police forces. Yet, ignoramuses like you say we should pay for the greed of other public sector bosses and professionals, or rather our clients should. I am sure that you have seen many pay rises since 1997, tax payer. We haven't. Just because you believe all you read in the tabloids does not mean it is true. I note that you are not attacking GPs, who earn four or five times what the criminal defence solicitor earns. The truth is I am a tax payer and I am paying for all sorts of services you benefit from. If you want to opt out of tax altogether go and live in somewhere like Haiti. You'll soon be back.
And how did this country get
And how did this country get into such a mess taxpayer, oh yes thats right the worldwide banking crisis. Are the bankers suffering at this present time - no they aren't they because have bought off the Tories by pouring money into Tory coffers. No wonder David Cameron is so keen to leave them alone. You appear to have swallowed this Governments rhetoric hook, line and sinker. Slaughtering public services, isn't going to do anything for the economy, or the deficit.
No it got into this mess by
No it got into this mess by spending more than it earns. And no the banks didn't do it, but they were a contributory factor and should have been allowed to go down.
Borrowing to pay for things we can't afford is the key problem. This causes inflation, which is theft.
Nothing to do with politics -this lot are as useless as the last lot.
Ladies and Gentlemen I am
Ladies and Gentlemen I am afraid that the days of earning a decent wage from legally aided work are long and gone. The past abuses (or fraud) by solicitors especially during the 'Green form' age brought this gravy train to a halt. The Tories do not care about whether the common man's civil rights are being eroded by not being able to afford a solicitor to represent him at court. There is absolutely nothing that us lawyers can do about these cuts. The Law Society have done all they can by making the general public aware of how the cuts in legal aid will affect them. However, call me cynical but I honestly believe that the large majority of people who the Law Society are seeking to enlighten are probably far more interested in the latest sagas on 'Corrie' and Eastenders, than they are signing up to this website, such is the state of apathy amongst most selfish adults in modern Britian. The students,the EDL and muslims are the only people I can see who seem to be very passionate about their causes. Although I do not read the gutter press newspapers I wonder how many articles have been published in the Sun newspaper telling its readers how legal aid cuts will affect them?
Legal Aid
I always remember an old black joke I learned at Law school, "the law is like the Ritz, open to all" I forget who said it. Can anybody help?
'open to all'
lord justice matthew
http://sixthformlaw.info/01_modules/mod1/1_4_legal_personnel/1_4_1_judiciary/00_rule_of_law.htm