Solicitors alarmed by associate prosecutor proposals
Proposals that could enable ‘associate prosecutors’ with no legal qualifications to conduct magistrates’ court trials amount to ‘justice on the cheap’ and herald the ‘de-lawyering’ of the magistrates’ court, solicitors have warned.
The Institute of Legal Executives (ILEX) is consulting on proposals to grant associate prosecutors extended rights of audience and to conduct litigation in summary-only cases in the magistrates’ court, and in limited circumstances in the Crown court.
The power to confer these rights on associated prosecutors currently rests with the director of public prosecutions, but from May 2011 will transfer to ILEX if its application to the Legal Services Board enabling it to grant rights of audience in litigation is successful.
Associate prosecutors (formerly called designated case workers) require no legal training and were introduced by the Crown Prosecution Service in 1998 to conduct a limited range of straightforward uncontested hearings. In 2007 their powers were extended to conduct trials for lesser offences. The then DPP, Sir Ken Macdonald QC said he could not imagine any situation where the caseworkers would be entrusted to handle cases where the defendant might go to prison.
The present consultation would pave the way for associate prosecutors, who since 2008 have been regulated by ILEX Professional Standards (IPS), to prosecute all summary-only cases, including youth court matters.
Tim O’Sullivan, a Crown prosecutor and member of the Law Society’s criminal law committee, said the eligibility criteria for associate prosecutors, who require no academic or legal qualifications, gave rise to ‘serious concerns’ for the quality of justice and potential for miscarriages of justice.
‘On public interest and interest of justice grounds there is no justification for this – it’s merely a case of introducing justice on the cheap,’ he said.
He added: ‘We’re rapidly approaching the de-lawyering of the magistrates’ court, as fewer defendants are represented and the Courts Service is piloting the replacement of legally qualified clerks with unqualified note takers. An individual could be wrongly convicted and imprisoned without a single qualified lawyer in court.’
Law Society policy director Mark Stobbs said he was concerned that the proposals were designed to save money rather than serve the interests of justice. He said the Society would respond to the consultation and may lobby the Legal Services Board on the issue.
IPS chief executive Ian Watson said the standard was sufficient to ensure competence.
Comments
Unqualified prosecutors
Further savings could be made by having a new "associate judge" who similarly would not need any qualifications. Such a job would be very attractive to migrant workers on the minimum wage who would cheerfully do the work for an extra pound or so an hour.
The system could be extended to the Health Service where "associate" doctors and surgeons could clear backlogs at minimal cost. No time would be wasted in training people and they could start immediately.
Magistrates are "associate judges"
We have "associate judges". They are called magistrates and have no legal qualifications whatsoever. They are volunteers and cost nothing. Lord Justice Auld sought to add a professional judge to each cas in the magistrates court. New Labour toadies denounced him for seeking to introduce the Soviet system. They prefer the medieval system that we have today. It is cheaper.
@ Annonymous So nothing will
@ Annonymous
So nothing will be changed
The Age of the Paralegal
So, "sorting out the regulatory maze" and "regulating in the public interest" was actually a cover for de-lawyering huge sectors in order to keep expenditure down. The Legal Services Act 2007 is nothing but a pretext for a huge cull of solicitors. Conveyancing solicitors will go (replaced by unqualified factory staff) , Crown Prosecutors will go ( replaced by unqualified associate prosecutors) and so will Criminal Defence Solicitors (replaced by Legal Executives). This will be achieved rapidly because the Law Society abdicated all power to the SRA Board and that is now under the supervision of the LSB. For the moment, Crown Prosecutors and Criminal Defence Solicitors have an escape route into the Crown Court but how long will that last?
The Law Society Gazette has not picked up a very significant statistic published by the UK Commission for Employment and Skills. That is to say that there were 24,509 Legal Professional Associates (effectively paralegals of all sorts) in 2001 and 51,250 Legal Professional Associates in 2009, an increase of 109%. The age of the paralegal is with us and at the same time we are trying to deal with a recession and a huge increase in trained solicitors. Something is going to give and that will be the number of solicitors or LPC graduates in employment as solicitors. A lot of these people are going to be replaced by underpaid paralegals.
Employment law will mean that it will be very risky to mix paralegals and solicitors doing the same work or you will face sex discrimination claims by the paralegals because the solicitors will pay more. So large sectors of the law are going to be solicitor free zones.
Please No
That's a ridiculous assessment - of course I've not met all of them - have you - but I have met a considerable number. .. certainly enough to take a view and certainly enough to judge a failing organisation when I see one.
It's a crazy idea. I've
It's a crazy idea. I've worked at the CPS before and know first hand what a chaotic and unstructured organisation it is. Also the role of Associate Prosecutor is only open to people within the CPS. That can be a problem because it limits the scope of candidates. There are so many LPC graduates or people that have done the bar floating around, but instead, they give the job to people who have no background in law, but have made been doing admin. Of course these new proposals will lead to miscarriages of justice.
The CPS are hand in glove
The CPS are hand in glove with the police, I sat through a Magistrates Case Death by wreckless driving, the witnessess were not witnessess conjured up by police, the accussed driver did not go in stand,their was no forensic accident investigators, their was no forensic pathologist, the two police officers who were driving a police van that was involved never appeared in the court and there whole involvement ie tended the injured, called emergency help had to be dragged out of the police force involved, lied about which side of car was damaged,lied about walking into car, when the person was stood on the pavement, The whole court case was a complete staged farce, they had taken the driver of the car and proved to the court he was innocent of any charge, What was the point, to torture the bereaved family further, no conscience but there is a judgement day, the more I read of the problems for solicitors, courts and judges I think they reap what they have sown
Year Zero
Another wonderful policy rolls off the New Labour production line. Fully thought through, as usual.
All this comes into force. Here we are at day 1 of the new rules, in Middle Wallop Magistrates Court
Court 1 features a highly qualified bench of magistrates, a note taker and Associate Prosecutor, Mr B. Ginner. The Defendant represents himself.
Court 2 features another highly qualified bench of magistrates, a Legal Clerk and a Crown Prosecutor, Mrs O.L.D. Timer. Mr B. Roke, defence Solicitor represents the Defendant.
There are two trials that day in the magistrates. One in each court. The trial in court 2 trial begins at 10 am and the trial in court 1 begins at 1030 am.
At 11 am the only prosecution witness in Mr B. Ginner’s court starts rambling incoherently and bursts into tears. No one notices that he may be an unreliable witness and all goes on and on, ending in conviction for the Defendant.
The Defendant finds a solicitor who listens to what happened and appeals. The main witness rambles incoherently and bursts into tears in the de novo appeal. His Honour Judge Hates- Solicitors stops the trial and dismisses the case and then asks what happened at the magistrates court and is told the same thing. He is told that Mrs Timer, who is a solicitor, was supervising Mr Ginner and reports her to the SRA, who decide that a person conducting a trial herself cannot supervise someone at the same time as conducting a trial and suspends Mrs Timer for 2 years and she loses her job at the CPS.
The next week the local CPS office receives a letter from solicitors. Not those representing Mrs Timer but those representing Mr Ginner, in his sex discrimination claim against the CPS. Mr Ginner was getting paid £21,000.00 and was doing the same job as Mrs Timer who was paid £49,000.00. CPS have to make a huge payment to settle the case.
Yes, this is a well thought out policy!
Bad idea
This is an extraordinarily ill-conceived idea.
As a defence solicitor, it is my (painful) experience that non-solicitor staff at the CPS lack very basic understanding of evidential rules and procedure.
For example, I've had absurd responses from associate prosecutors in relation to evidential issues resulting in further (and wholly unnecessary) contact with CPS solicitors to resolve things. If a CPS solicitor was involved from the start (as in days gone by) this additional mucking about would not have been required.
Would I let a paralegal at my firm loose in court? No chance. I wouldn't have any client's left.
God help the victims of crime.
associate prosecutors
This is a matter of real concern. The idea that you replace a solicitor or counsel Crown prosecutor with a caseworker with neither educational qualifications or professional qulaifications and give them just short of full rights of audiance, unsupervised in the Magistrates Court courtroom, is out of Alice in Wonderland.
Why has the CPS been so shy of consulting on their plans ? If this is light touch regulation on the part of ILEX Standards Board, whilst I suspect that it could soon become a regulator of choice, it hardly inspires public confidence for the victims and witnesses of crime.
Don't forget CPS associate prosecutors are not legal executives - neither members or fellows - and are unable to use the post-nominal initials. They are referred to as associate members of ILEX.
An important article for the Gazette. I look forward to coverage of the massive sums of public money paid out to settle equal pay claims to Associate Prosecutors !
Defending associate prosecutors
There is nothing wrong with associate prosecutors handling simple prosecutions in the Magistrates' Court. This tidal wave of bias and prejudice against non-solicitor lawyers and paralegals is predictable; contrary to popular myth solicitors are not the only people who can conduct litigation (criminal and civil), even if under solicitors' oversight for the most part. It suits solicitors for the myth to be perpetuated for obvious reasons. They are desparately trying to cling on to their traditional monopoly on litigation and rights of audience and are threatened by a changing legal services market. It is time they woke up to the 21st century and accepted the fact that legal executives, licenced conveyancers, accredited advisers and other properly qualified and experienced professionals are out there providing specialist legal services with equal competence and eligibility. The establishment has finally acknowledged the changing face of the legal profession with the passing of the Legal Services Act. The Law Society needs to get to grips with this and educate its members and indeed the general public. Solicitors have exploited legal executives and paralegals for years; now that the tables are turning they are clutching at straws to defend their dying monopoly.
Associate prosecutors are properly trained by ILEX to conduct simple prosecutions, e.g. road traffic matters. Their training standards are of high quality and they work closely with the CPS in selecting the right candidates. They are supervised by Crown Prosecutors.The whole point of this is to take the pressure off Crown Prosecutors so that they can concentrate on prosecuting more serious cases. Associate prosecutors will not be conducting Crown Court trials for serious offences. These will always be handled by experienced counsel or Crown Prosecutors. The idea that associate prosecutors could cause miscarriages of justice is laughable. Anyone who sensibly practices crime on either side of the fence will know this.
The Gazette should focus on the actual training that associate prosecutors receive by liaising with ILEX and the CPS and try to produce something more accurate and objective.
When legal executive practices and LDP's start to emerge in direct competition with old style solicitors' firms, perhaps solicitors will finally realise they are not the only kids on the block and start to show the others a little more respect.
Associate Prosecutors
It won't matter that much as there are so few defendants
coming to court now because of pre court disposals, CPS scared to prosecute and mess up stats and a Government wishing to save money on public expenditure.
What a shame newspapers keep focusing on MPs being dishonest instead of MPs being incompetent and dishonest.
In reply to William Halperns
In reply to William Halperns comment, any solicitor of any consequence always gives respect to those who know what they are doing.
Whilst it is entirely true that in the past, many solicitors firms effectively exploited the experience of their employees, this is hardly the case now. Such "employees" (in reality the getters and doers) are much sought after and rewarded accordingly.
The fear is, surely, that experience (wherever that is found) is to be replaced by box-ticking.
How very delightful this
How very delightful this article has been. It just alerted me, as a law student, that my job prospect has just been further limited by unasked for paralegals, who in fact are no legal personnel at all. It is as if the economic crisis and the caps placed on lawyers are not enough. Of course, this might just be another way to cheapen the justice system, or whatever it is that is denoted by that name. But then, replacing qualified lawyers but without money to pay off debts with some lay people who are without qualification and possibly without education is another matter. Of course, magistrates are trained, and they are indispensable, so I have no problem supporting them and their role as judges. It is important that lay people are allowed to decided objectively on the outcome of a case. However, it is inconceivable how completely lay people are going to do the job of lawyers, much less in criminal cases. As usual, this is one of those decisions that make me question the maturity in making decisions, and possibly their level of intelligence too, of those who do it. Thank you very much for the information, and I sincerely hope more students as well as existing lawyers will do something to contribute to the objection of this decision.