Bloody Sunday and jury trials give lawyers mixed week

Most papers returned to what they loved best this week, with news of the money paid so far to law firms involved in the Bloody Sunday Inquiry providing ample excuse for media attacks on lawyers.Although most of the outrage is centred on the ten QCs and 12 junior counsel who have reportedly shared 7.7 million in fees and expenses between them, solicitors' firms came in for a share of criticism.London's Evening Standard attacked the 'astonishing fortunes already amassed by lawyers', highlighting the 10 million earned by City firm Eversheds in taking witness statements (15 January).

The Times elaborated on the story, claiming that the solicitors' firms working on the inquiry 'are seeking unprecedented fees at double their normal rates' (17 January).

The seven unnamed Northern Ireland firms involved in the inquiry apparently 'want to charge a rate of 230 per hour rather than the usual of less than 100 because of the the length of the inquiry and its sensitive "highly charged" nature'.However, a different view was taken by The Independent which argued in an editorial that 'a cut-price inquiry would lack any public credibility and fail to serve the purpose for which it was set up' (17 January).

The paper claimed that 'if a public inquiry is to be held, then no party to it should be made to make do with legal representation on the cheap'.

However, the problem is that 'the law is one of the last bastions of restrictive practices, and the bar is the most restrictive of all'.

Claiming that 'the very structure of the bar - the domination of the profession by a few top names who can set their own price - is a large part of the reason why litigation and public inquiries cost so much', the paper saw the solution as simple: 'it is high time that ministers instituted their promised review and forced open competition for legal services.' If this happens as a result of the Bloody Sunday Inquiry costs, then 'the money may not have been spent in vain'.Somewhat better news for the legal profession was the front-page reports this week of an 'embarrassing climbdown' by the government in deciding to scrap plans to restrict the right to jury trial and introduce a jury-free intermediate court tier to try either-way offences (The Times, The Guardian, 21 January).

While no final decision has been made, Whitehall sources were quoted freely as saying it would not proceed.Indeed, Whitehall was briefing like crazy over the weekend, to judge by the number of cabinet ministers who were reported to have suddenly expressed 'grave doubts' over the plans, including Home Secretary David Blunkett, Lord Chancellor Lord Irvine, and Attorney-General Lord Goldsmith.

'Mr Blunkett in particular, bruised by fierce opposition to his anti-terrorism Act, believes that the government must heed the many critics of its proposed overhaul of the criminal justice system,' said The Times.

The Guardian said Mr Blunkett has decided 'it is time to cut the government's losses and not risk the disproportionate political damage in pressing the measure again', after it was twice struck down in the House of Lords.

Strong opposition from Labour backbenchers was also said to be a factor, along with the cost of the new court tier.Another controversial government plan unveiled last week was 'to privatise the courts system' (The Independent, 17 January), a proposal resulting from a Whitehall inquiry which 'exposed wide variations in the administration of justice across the country'.

Court security and departments responsible for storing court records are possible privatisation candidates.

However, the path to privatisation is unlikely to run smoothly.

As the paper pointed out: 'After the fiasco of railway privatisation, and against a background of greater private sector involvement in the National Health Service, any proposal to allow businesses to profit from the justice system will prove controversial.'Victoria MacCallum