Ad hoc reviews of the criminal justice system, legal aid and court fees have been inadequate, says Janet Paraskeva

There are several factors that determine how well solicitors serve their clients. One of the most important is the justice system, which provides the framework for the profession’s day-to-day work. As well as the court system, how cases are funded, handled and determined are all under review. They are interconnected and involve many stakeholders. And it was hoped that the government would take a holistic approach and analyse the role of everyone involved – from solicitors and barristers through to the police, judges and administrators.


Instead, the process has been piecemeal. Reviews of the criminal justice system, legal aid and court fees have all taken place in isolation. And attempts to resolve the inadequate funding of civil courts, provide a commercial court worthy of the legal profession’s international status and standing, and reduce the length of complex fraud trials feel as though they have been made independently.


Even more disappointing has been the focus on solicitors as the perceived cause of many of the problems. The narrow remit of the Carter review of criminal legal aid fails to recognise the many issues caused by delays in police stations, magistrates and crown courts that are outside the control of practitioners. At a recent conference in London, the Attorney General suggested that the only people wanting to keep jury trials for fraud cases were ‘self-interested’ lawyers. Peter Goldsmith QC made these remarks despite the numerous examples given at the event of delays in the court system that have nothing to do with juries (or solicitors).


There is scope for improving the way solicitors work. But the profession has become an easy target for the government, despite the fact that the way solicitors work is largely dictated by the courts. The estimated cost of waste and delay in magistrates courts alone is £55 million.


A recent National Audit Office report shows why that figure is so high. A defendant charged with throwing a missile during a football match was said by police to have been recorded on CCTV. After a year, it was established that the recording did not, in fact, exist. And often, courts do not have the DVD technology required to watch CCTV footage even when it is available.


These issues are writ even larger in the higher courts. Estimates for the total cost of waste and delay are in the hundreds of millions of pounds. The Law Society is not looking to point the finger of blame. It is not in the interests of any of the stakeholders in the court system to suggest that the costs and delays fall primarily on other groups.


But we do want the government to have a better understanding of the problems that exist across the system, and a joined-up approach that will allow us to meet our shared goals – a fair, effective, speedy and cost-efficient justice system. While the Carter review looks to reduce expenditure in the legal aid system, the costs of bringing cases to the family courts has risen exponentially. And the government is hoping to make civil courts self-funding.


These proposals will surely make legal services less accessible for the public and put more pressure on those being asked to deliver justice.


It would make more sense to guarantee that the money saved on very high cost criminal cases goes towards the funding of small civil cases, to reduce fee increases in the family courts and to ensure that savings are made in the administration of cases that could then keep court fees down generally.


The failure to look at the system in the round is not only putting pressure on many small and medium-sized law legal aid firms, but firms with an international perspective are also suffering. The reputation of the legal profession in England and Wales made the Commercial Court in London the primary destination for international legal disputes. Today it is still in the top three, with New York and Paris at least as popular. But that position is under threat.


Why? Because the Commercial Court in London is totally unsuited for the demands of complex international cases. It is too small, with little technology and is lacking investment. New or modernised courts in Dublin, Singapore and Zurich are already threatening to overtake London. Without proper investment, the billions of pounds in invisible earnings that the court brings to the City will continue to be whittled away.


What is the Law Society doing to address this piecemeal approach? We are urging the government to look at these issues together. And we are emphasising their potential impacts on other reforms that have taken place or are being proposed. We are also campaigning against other proposals that are making the profession’s day-to-day existence more problematic.


Last week, the Legal Services Commission withdrew plans to abolish its specialist support service following a campaign led by the Law Society. And the government has back tracked on the removal of juries from fraud trials, at least for the time being.


In its White Paper on legal services, the government has asked us to ‘Put consumers first’. Solicitors already do this to a large extent and we have accepted that challenge. But we need some help from the Department for Constitutional Affairs. We need to work together to create a justice system that meets the expectations of the public, the legal profession and the government.


Janet Paraskeva is the Law Society Chief Executive