Lost generation fears of Labour's Sadiq Khan
Criminal legal aid solicitors will be such an endangered species by 2015 that Labour would not need to take forward plans for price-competitive tendering in the sector.
That is the startlingly frank opinion of shadow justice secretary Sadiq Khan MP, who has given the Gazette an insight into the justice policy of an incoming Labour government should the party win the next general election. The coalition intends to begin consulting on tendering for criminal legal aid next year, after the previous administration abandoned the plan in the face of lawyer opposition.
But Khan does not expect this to be taken forward in the event of a Labour win, because there will be ‘far fewer’ criminal solicitors by 2015.
Khan, a former human rights solicitor, also voiced fears of a ‘lost generation’ as the reforms in the Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Act drive women, and black and minority ethnic (BME) solicitors out of the profession. A disproportionate number of women and BME lawyers work in legal aid.
‘There has been real progress made in increasing access to the profession and diversity,’ he said. ‘I fear that will all be undermined.’ He expects the ramifications to be felt in the judiciary, where progress towards greater diversity will be rolled back. ‘These solicitors are tomorrow’s judges and we could see a generation lost,’ he added.
He went on call for a ‘culture change’ in law firms to allow more solicitors to join the bench. ‘There’s still a snobbishness that you need to be a barrister to become a judge, but that is rubbish,’ he said.
Despite his concern about LASPO, Khan would not pledge to reverse the scope cuts that take effect next April. ‘I can’t promise to reverse what the government has done and restore social welfare law or offer [other] cuts instead,’ he said.
Comments
"But Khan does not expect
"But Khan does not expect this to be taken forward in the event of a Labour win, because there will be ‘far fewer’ criminal solicitors by 2015".
100 per cent. correct.
The only "known unknown" is which will survive. Leaving aside the very large organisations (of whom there are few) this is impossible to predict. By analogy, if 10 persons enter a casino, maybe 3 will emerge as winners. Impossible to say which 3.
Reason - the totally random distribution of the valuable work, and the absence of sufficient bread and butter work to go round.
The usual joined-up thinking
Bit of a shame then, that New Labour created 3,600 new criminal offences.
CPT
Competitive price Tendering is exactly what those who are greedy, incapable of winning over clients through ability and marketing desire. It's the lazy man's approach to a larger market share.
It distorts the market.
It rewards those firms who have failed to achieve real efficiency and who have failed to limit numbers of solicitors to numbers of clients. It rewards those who have "adopted" duty solicitors and thereby enhanced their own standing whilst failing to adapt to the market conditions.
It is the antipathy of business logic and free market thinking.
It rewards the Duty Solicitor migrants and those who operate under a flag of convenience.
It is a civil servant led fetish of no substance and of no merit, based upon a complete disregard for the right of a person to choose.
In no other area of professional life does competitive price tendering operate.
CPT is the bile that flows from a real prejudice towards Solicitors held by some civil servants and some MPs who fail to really understand what legal aid is all about and why anyone would dedicate a life to public service" for so little reward.
CPT
Society does not owe criminal legal aid lawyers a living. Every other business, if it wants to secure a public sector contract, has to compete so that the tax payer can receive value for money. Quite why criminal legal aid lawyers, in their conceit, should think that they are immune from this welcome process is beyond me.
It seems to me that the more progressive firms would see opportunity in CPT, and work hard for the financial rewards that it can offer if they get it right, and that is an honest position. CPT should have been rammed down the throat of the legal profession long time ago, and to hell with the bleating.
Is the citizen charged with
Is the citizen charged with an offence therefore to be deprived of his right to appoint a legal representative of his own choice because he cannot afford it?
This seems to be a massive extension of the state power by stealth. The succesful tenderer's real client is, of course, the state, not the person being represented. Isn't this called a conflict of interest? In fact one of the gravest kind, where the citizens liberty is at stake?
CPT has attractions at first glance-but solving the above conflict is impossible. And no, this is not a defence of the "rights of lawyers"-it is a defence of the rights of the citizen against the state.
I understand the USA has a public defender system-does anyone know how truly effective it is?
I disagree, whether the
I disagree, whether the client chooses his own Solicitor or is chosen for him, the paymaster remains the same, for those who cannot afford one. When I was in private practise, I never felt in any way compromised because the state was the ultimate paymaster.
Also, let’s not be naïve. I observed in some firms (not all I hasten to add) that “choices” were influenced by payment from Solicitors for charge sheets and on going loyalty in the form of money, fags, bus fares home from court, trainers, and in the case of the kiddies, trips to McDonalds and DVD’s.
Where I do agree with you though is that there is a massive extension of state power, and that that is undesirable. That said, whether a defendant can choose their own Solicitor or be assigned one, makes no difference in my view, as to whether the tide of the state can be rolled back.
A Solicitors individual integrity, sense of fair play, coupled with fearlessness and a little fire in the belly is what is really important.
Your last paragraph is the
Your last paragraph is the telling point.
My point/view is that it is more likely there will be solicitors with that approach in a system with diverse firms than a system with merely a monolithic provider.
There will always be firms/solictors who abuse the "system" (favours to police etc.)-it is the institutionalisation (sorry, couldn't think of a better word), and acceptance of this, whether as acceptance of referral fees as being "right" (thanks to the OFT and the supine Law Society) or more informally that is corrosive.
I disagree as to the roll back of state power-it can be. However, the best way is not to let it be established-and stopping this would be a good start
Ex criminal solicitor: it is
Ex criminal solicitor: it is only a public service contract because previous Government made it so.
That was the first mistake.
Are you seriously suggesting that companies like G4S or A4E should be able to bid for a contract to provide advice in police stations or at Magistrates Court?
Next they'll be privatising the Police, Probation, Prisons and Healthcare?!?