DELAY: MoJ responds to Law Society and Bar Council's concerns over VHCC measures


Plans for judges to sack lawyers who cause unnecessary delays in very high-cost cases (VHCCs) have been revised following concerns raised by the Law Society and the Bar Council.



The new measures outlined by the Ministry of Justice (MoJ) last week mean lawyers could be replaced where they cause considerable delays during long-running trials due to the lack of capacity within the firm to deal with the case, or where representing more than one client leads to a conflict of interest.



The plans were proposed in a consultation last year, but have been amended so the responsibility for withdrawal of representation lies with the Legal Services Commission's (LSC) complex case unit, rather than the trial judge, so as to protect legal professional privilege. The change was prompted by concerns from the Law Society and Bar Council that the judge may have had to order withdrawal over a conflict of interest on the basis of supposition alone in the absence of the defendant waiving privilege.



The new policy will enable a trial judge to refer cases to the LSC, which could then ask the defendant to find another lawyer. The LSC will also have discretion to contract with one firm per defendant at the outset where there is a sufficiently serious risk of a conflict of interest that it could hold up the progress of a trial.



The MoJ has also listened to practical concerns around the previously suggested three-week time-limit for the appointment of a new lawyer, and now proposes to allow the trial judge discretion over the timetable.



Law Society chief executive Des Hudson said he was encouraged by the ministry's response, adding that the new conflict rules now mirror the existing professional rules of conduct for solicitors.



He said: 'The Law Society fully supports effective and robust judicial case management to ensure all cases are handled efficiently and swiftly because failure to control the few very high-cost cases leads to cost pressures on the rest of the legal aid system.'



In a joint statement, the Bar Council and the Criminal Bar Association said the revised proposal was a better system for case management, with a more watchful eye kept on conflict issues. But it went on: 'It remains to be seen whether these proposals will improve trial management.'



See also 'Going down the tube', under Features



Catherine Baksi