Making crime pay - an area of practice which has as many pressures as rewards

Fewer defendants has heightened competition amongst criminal practitioners.

Robert Verkaik looks at how these solicitors make ends meet.A list of the top twenty criminal legal aid barristers recently issued by the Lord Chancellor's Department (LCD) was headed by a prominent QC whose gross earnings topped £500,000 in one year.

Further down the list, half a dozen more QCs were averaging £400,000 on legal aid fees alone.It's easy to see why the Bar still thinks crime pays.

Even junior criminal barristers of under 10 years-call can make £100,000.The solicitor sole practitioner is at the other end of the scale.

The sort of criminal legal aid figures seen by the Bar are a mathematical impossibility for solicitors specialising in crime.

There are simply not enough billable hours in the week.

For example, if a solicitor billed for 48 weeks at 5 hours every working day at £60 an hour, his total fees would only amount to £72,000 a year.Criminal sole practitioner Stephen Gilchrist, of Gilchrists, has done the sums.

He says: 'I think, despite the introduction of fixed fees, there is still an immense discrepancy between the controls imposed on counsel and their fees and the controls imposed on solicitors.' He concludes: 'I think some of the money payable to counsel, and silks in particular, is unjustified.'Far from aspiring to the high earnings at the Bar, falling arrest rates and shortened court lists mean many small firms of solicitors are having to scrape around for what little work there is.

Moreover, on top of the now perennial threat to legal aid rates, crime specialists are being told that if they want to survive they will have to bid for franchises.

Even the most direct route out of financial trouble is blocked by a 'catch 22' -- solicitors looking to escape the magistrates courts and take up their higher court rights of audience find they simply cannot afford the time or money to undergo to the qualification process.It is no wonder then that crime is tough on solicitors.

Mr Gilchrist, a duty solicitor scheme committee member and former chairman of the Legal Aid Practitioners Group (LAPG), has been a crime specialist for over twenty years.He says that while he cannot complain about the arrest figures going down ('that would be like a doctor complaining that he has not got enough patients') it nevertheless adds to the pain: 'When you base a practice on criminal work you have to rely on work coming in.

At the moment there is too little work and too many solicitors chasing it.' He says it is the 'bread and butter' work such as shoplifting and burglary which is affected.Laurence Lee -- a Liverpool sole practitioner who represented one of the defendants in the Jamie Bulger murder case -- also reports a drop in the arrest rate and a greater use of police cautions for adults.

He says that has resulted in fewer firms chasing less work.

To improve the quality of service of his own practice Mr Lee has recently employed a court runner.

The runner checks the court lists at Liverpool magistrates court making sure Mr Lee is in the right court at the right time and that clients know how long they will have to wait for him.

He says this has greatly eased his day-to-day practice.

But he has also detected a hardening of the client-lawyer relationship.

He says many clients are not as loyal as they used to be.In one recent incident, a long-time client who Mr Lee had asked to wait a bit when the client rang from the police station at 2.30am, had great pleasure in telling Mr Lee he was sacked.

Clients are waking up and taking advantage of the fact that a dearth of defendants means they can pick and choose who they want to represent them.Another feature of the shrinking numbers of defendant clients is that some solicitors have been forced to seek multiple-membership of duty solicitor schemes.

Brian Shieldhouse, a sole practitioner from County Durham says he has had to join four schemes and has thus become a 'full-time duty solicitor.' Mr Shieldhouse argues that because competition for places has intensified some members of duty solicitor committees are abusing their positions.

He says the 'current arrangements' for the operation of schemes also 'allows and encourages abuse of power.' Mr Shieldhouse says: 'This needs addressing now because the pace of abuse is increasing as more and more solicitors are forced to turn to duty solicitor work.'Mr Gilchrist also notes the 'pressures' placed on solicitors by the Police Station Accreditation Scheme.

This means that only those paralegals who have been passed by the scheme can represent a firm at the police station.

He says: 'It costs money for firms to put staff on it and there's a low level of success on their first go.''The politisation of legal aid is creating a demotivating and debilitating perception of criminal practice by the people who are in it.

The practitioners I speak to are just fed up with it and if they had the opportunity would get out and do something else -- not even law.'Mr Gilchrist predicts that in the next five years there will be 'far fewer' criminal solicitors in business.Many solicitors feel that pressure from the Law Society and consumer organisations has pushed them into specialisation leaving them timid of general practice.

But Mr Gilchrist thinks sole practitioners and smaller firms do have the capability to try their hand at other areas of law.

Now Mr Gilchrist, like other crime solicitors, is looking to broaden his practice and is taking on entertainment law work.

He explains: 'You buy the book, go on the course and learn about it.

There's nothing mystical about other aspects of law.

I've done it myself.

When I first started in entertainment law I thought intellectual property was thinking about buying a house.'Other firms of solicitors are looking for ways of shoring up their crime businesses.London-based Tuckers with over 20 solicitors is one of the country's largest criminal practices.

Its lawyers deal with nothing but crime.

If smaller firms and sole practitioners are experiencing a shrinkage in crime work then it is firms like Tuckers which are part of the reason.

For the past few years Tuckers has been acquiring clients, not losing them.

This has been achieved by offering t hem extra services.

One of its most proactive developments was the establishment of a welfare department in October last year.

Brian Craig, the firm's business manager, says that since its establishment, the department's caseload has been 'spiralling' to meet the firm's client needs.

Tim Raymond, one of two people working in the department, says that welfare advice is a mandatory requirement for a legal aid franchise application.

'Without an effective mechanism for referring clients for expert advice,' says Mr Raymond, 'all we were doing was paying lip service to the franchise requirement.' Tuckers' welfare department, headed by Patricia Blake, a barrister who has worked in the Royal Courts of Justice's citizens advice bureau, helps homeless defendants find accommodation and negotiate the entangled bureaucracy of the Department of Social Services.

It also offers a drug and debt counselling service.

Mr Raymond says it has been crucial to keep the documentation as simple as possible so that Tuckers lawyers will be encouraged to use the service.It is innovative approaches to criminal practice, like Tuckers welfare department, which will not only help solicitors win franchises but also show clients that they mean business.DEFENDING WHITE COLLAR OFFENDERS IN THE CITY IS A WORLD AWAY FROM ACTING FOR LIVERPOOL'S DRUG BARONS.

TIM WEEKES ASSESSES THE VARIETY.The work of criminal solicitors is varied.

For those in a small high street practice, a typical client might be a petty shoplifter.

For a big London practice it could be a company director.

The charges their clients face can be as trivial as breach of the peace or as serious as murder.

But there is a remarkable agreement among criminal law solicitors of all types about the purpose of their work and their motivation for doing it.

They are driven by the desire to see their clients get the best possible deal from the criminal justice system.

And they are all fascinated by their clients.June Venters, senior partner of south London firm Venters & Co, is a typical example.

She left a commercial property practice after qualifying to move into criminal law.

As she says, she preferred to work 'with people, not buildings'.

Many of these people seem a world away from the educated and affluent circles in which most lawyers work.

Gerard Hale, sole partner of G V Hale & Co in Barnsley, has built up his practice partly through maintaining a loyal clientele of repeat offenders who are arrested time and again.

His clients are typically unemployed young men carrying out theft and deception.

The arithmetic of crime is simple for them.

The £25,000 they can make in a year from crime, even if it results in a year in prison, is better than the £2,000 they get on the dole.According to Mr Hale, these clients 'tend to be interesting and entertaining'.

They have not got degrees, they do not have a profession, so crime is their way of bettering themselves, not just in terms of money, but also their standing in their community,' he says.

But he finds the rapid growth of heroin addiction, and the crime it fuels, depressing.

'Three years ago, around 5% of our clients were involved with heroin.

Now it's nearer 50%,' he says.The loyalty of his clients means Mr Hale has a busy schedule.

As well as a 10 hour day in the office, he is also called out during the night to a police station on average once a week, and he drives 30,000 miles a year around the courts and police stations of south-west Yorkshire.

The cases he handles and the clients he sees are a world away from those of John Clitheroe, senior partner o f Kingsley Napley and a white collar fraud specialist.

But Mr Clitheroe's clients -- business people and managers -- are also 'usually extremely interesting characters who have made their way in life through their own efforts.

They are often personable and intelligent', he says.

While Mr Hale's clients might regard prison as an occupational hazard, white collar fraudsters sometimes do not even realise they have committed a crime.

Mr Clitheroe says: 'They react with complete horror when anybody suggests that an activity they regarded as a part of normal business life could in fact have been criminal.' Mr Clitheroe specialised in white collar crime after a general training in criminal law -- a early grounding which he says has been useful to him throughout his career.

But he says fraud work is different from other crime, and requires special resources to be handled properly.

'A major case can take four or five years and involve millions of documents,' he says.

Because of this, fraud cases often involve complex reconstructions of company structures and processes and laborious paper chases.So while Mr Clitheroe says the intellectual challenge is 'fascinating', the solicitor seeking a glamorous working life might do better to look to the Old Bailey.

For Mark Haslam, a partner with Magrath & Co, the high profile of the big criminal cases adds to the excitement of his work.

'Crime is a big filler of newspaper columns.

Most people get to read the top crime stories, while they might never even hear about the big civil cases going on.'A case involving a client of his, Christine Dryland, made the front pages when she stood accused of the murder of her husband, an Army major serving in Germany.

But not only did it attract huge media interest -- it was also a fascinating case legally, he says.

'The forensic evidence was at the core of the case.

The defence had to use that evidence to reconstruct the whole scene in order to prove our version of events.' Mr Haslam says he gets an 'enormous amount of satisfaction' from putting clients' cases in the best possible light.

In his view, the thrill of the work is such that lawyers in his position 'get addicted to criminal work'.Criminal lawyers can end up meeting characters that could have come straight out of a television police drama.

Julian Linskill, of Liverpool-based law firm Linskills, is routinely asked to represent alleged gangsters, drug smugglers and murderers, the result, he says, of his reputation for success in such cases.In his 22-year career, he has come across some colourful members of Liverpool's criminal fraternity.

One client he particularly remembers is Thomas Comerford, a 'criminal of the old school'.

He says: 'He is a superb raconteur, a man of great intelligence and humour, in whose company one could happily spend a whole night.

By his intellect and character he could command respect from both his lawyer and his subordinates.' According to Mr Linskill, he was the first criminal ever to use a thermal lance in a bank robbery: he cut out the bank's night safe and collected the day's takings from businesses as they dropped them into the deposit box.

Such characters are the spice of a criminal lawyer's work, but as Mr Haslam says, even cases involving a parking offence provide a sense of satisfaction if the lawyer makes the best possible case for the client.

He might have a biased view, but he makes an uncompromising case for his branch of the law.

'Criminal law is undoubtedly the most interesting work there is,' he says.

It is hard to find a criminal lawyer who disagrees.Crimin al lawyers spend much time in the tense atmosphere of police cells.

Peter Hill looks at whether relations with police have improved.Despite the miscarriages of justice which have been exposed in Britain, most solicitors involved in such cases believe there have been several improvements in the system in the past ten years.

Jim Nichol, the solicitor for the defendants in the Carl Bridgewater case, says: 'things have improved, you cannot deny that.

When I was involved in the Blakelock murder trial, I was excluded from the police station.

I remember issuing habeas corpus proceedings against a police officer for the production of my client.'Stephen Couch, the leading criminal solicitor in Bradford says: 'there is a new generation growing up in the police since the Police Criminal Evidence Act (PACE) was introduced in 1984.

Before that the police used to watch the TV programme 'The Sweeney' and detective inspectors and sergeants used to fancy themselves as the buccaneering characters on TV.

But those days are definitely gone.'Alastair Logan, the solicitor who worked on the Guildford Four case, also believes there have been some improvements in relations with the police.

'When there is an attempt at verballing an individual, that is personal and makes relationships between the profession, barristers, solicitors and the police, very difficult,' he says.

'That is because you have to take them on on the basis of their honesty.

After PACE there are fewer personal challenges to the officers concerned.'The attitude of senior police officers seems to have changed.

The recent events in the Bridgewater case illustrate this.

In many ways it was an old-style miscarriage of justice case.

The police and the appeal courts had an over-riding belief in the guilt of the accused.

There was an apparent failure to disclose evidence which suggested innocence.Mr Nichol won the Bridgewater case because he doubted the integrity of the police officers involved.

One of the accused, Patrick Molloy (who died in prison), claimed he was shown a statement by another of the accused, Vincent Hickey.

Molloy said he reacted out of revenge and gave the police a statement implicating the other men they had arrested.

Nichol paid for Electrostatic Deposition Analysis (ESDA) tests on the Molloy's statement -- and his hunch was proved right.

The paper of Molloy's statement held an impression of another statement which purported to be from Hickey.

The handwriting , however, was not Hickey's.Ray White, the President of the Association of Chief Police Officers (ACPO), announced that when the case was investigated, the police service was in 'a very run-down state, desperately short of staff.

Police officers were leaving the service in droves, salaries were at rock bottom and morale was very poor.' He added: 'the service unreservedly condemns any improper activity by police officers.' Nevertheless, Alastair Logan is quick to remind us that 'not a single officer has spent a day in jail for the 1974 Irish cases.'Although the introduction of PACE and the CPS appear to have improved matters, both developments were initially opposed by the police.

Police believed that giving regular legal advice to suspects would hamper the course of justice.

However, once they began to operate the system, they discovered it could help their investigations.

They also believed that recording interviews would cramp their style.

In fact it dramatically cut the number of accusations by suspects that the police had 'verballed' them.Purpose-built suites for identity parades are still opposed in ma ny forces, yet the experience of using such suites in Manchester, Liverpool and London suggests that the better-protected the evidence, the more sure the police can be of a successful and secure prosecution.

Mr Nichol, however, still has some reservations about them because the Turnbull rules are still being bent.

'I did a case which went back to the Court of Appeal,' he says.

'The people in the line-up had come from a local restaurant -- all in white shirts and black ties -- my man was in a shell suit.

Police officers will perhaps want the suspect to wear a baseball cap -- you must be firm and insist on covering their heads completely.

Sometimes our people have tattoos, we insist on having elastoplasts placed over them.

The extent to which the ID suites work depends on the competence of the solicitor involved to deal with all of that.'The police still do not like having independent custody officers as introduced by PACE.

From Mr Nichol's experience, this is perhaps not surprising because the officers sometimes witness breaches of the rules.

'Not long ago a young woman was arrested and I went to the police station.' he says.

'She decided to make no statement or comment.

I left the room, but was delayed -- and heard the officer in charge say to her "You f***ing stupid bitch, why didn't you listen to your parents instead of your f***ing solicitor?" He didn't realise I could hear him.

The custody sergeant heard it too -- so I said to him "You write that down."'When custody officers are truly independent, defence solicitors have found them more easy to work with.

The system is still far from perfect, but Alastair Logan, who looked into the role of the custody officer whilst on Lord Justice May's enquiry into criminal practice in 1990, believes that videotaping custody areas will bring great improvements.Solicitors also complain about police attitudes.

Stephen Couch says: 'I think one of the problems now is their right to impose bail conditions.

That's a retrograde step.

You get quite ludicrous conditions imposed in the police station.'Mr Nichol thinks the loss of the right to silence has put intense pressure on solicitors.

'You have to make a decision in a really short space of time.

In the old days the easy decision was to say "make no comment".

Now the easy decision is to say "say something" and advise them of the consequences.

The hard decision is to take the decision to say nothing.

It gets you in the pit of your stomach.

I think in many cases the pressure on the advisers is too much and they simply go through the formal procedure of advising what the consequences are and abandoning responsibility for the final advice.

Because more and more advisers are being called to the Crown Court to explain why it was that they gave advice to say no comment.

If you are doing a murder it is nerve-racking.'The police know that defence solicitors now trust them less and investigate them more.

Mr Nichol's experience on the Bridgewater case is that 'they are paranoid that we are going to discover something else and they are disclosing material like there is no tomorrow.' Elkan Ambrahamson, who worked on the recent Liverpool case of Paul Malone in the Court of Appeal, says that the police released tea chests full of material to him after the re-investigation.This points to the main element of the change - police standards are actually determined by miscarriages of justice.

And the events that matter have taken place within the bodies that deal with such cases.

The major blow to the police was in 1985, inside the Home Office.

Until then the department dealing with petitions to the Home Secretary, C3, had generally responded to a petition by employing the original police force to criticise all new evidence.

But the responsible minister, David Mellor, determined to break C3 of this habit.

He sent the case of Ernie Clarke, convicted of murder in South Shields in 1979, back to the Court of Appeal -- without any C3 police 're-investigation'.Three years later, prodded by the DPP, Lord Lane changed the long-established unwritten rule that the Court of Appeal would not quash a conviction on the grounds of police malpractice.

In the Guildford Four case, Lord Lane finally acknowledged that "the police were not telling the truth about a crucial document in the case,' and 'if they were prepared to tell this sort of lie, then all the evidence became suspect.'The Criminal Case Review Commission (CCRC), which came into operation this week, offers the opportunity to take a further step forward.

It is an institution separate from the police which has sweeping powers to make investigations.

It can decide what is the proper use of secret recordings.

If it introduces transparency into its operations, those qualities will quickly be transferred downwards within the system.By using its powers, the CCRC could make a major contribution towards achieving a fairer trial process.

That will benefit both the police and defence solicitors.

Solicitors involved in preparing cases of miscarriage of justice are sadly not encouraged.

Mr Nichol says ' I'm very sceptical.

I'll believe it when I see it' .

See Criminal law: Disclosure Provisions, page 28.WHO WOULD THE TOP LAWYERS CALL? BY ROBERT VERKAIKWe asked a straw poll of leading criminal solicitors who they would choose to represent them at a police station if they found themselves held in custody over night.Keith Oliver of London firm Peters & Peters, who represented Kevin Maxwell, said: 'Aside from any other member of my firm which I may not wish to consult for reasons of embarrassment it would be anyone of the London Criminal Court Solicitors Association (LCCSA) given that they had the right experience.'Peter Krivinskas, of Manchester firm Krivinskas & Co, who represents Asil Nadir: 'After I'd got over the shock and I was locked up in London I would probably go for Geoffrey Robertson QC.

I've seen him in action and he's very good indeed.

Of course I would be happy to be guided by chambers and see a junior counsel at the police station.

If it was in Manchester then I'd choose David Jones of David Jones & Co.'Stephen Gilchrist of London firm Gilchrists: 'I might plump for Anthony Burton of Simon Muirhead & Burton because I like him and he knows what he's doing.

I might also ask for Mark Stephens -- he'd turn up and give them what for.'Anthony Burton of Simons Muirhead & Burton: 'Having resisted the temptation of representing myself I would probably choose someone who would be available at such an unsociable hour and, if it was something that was going to get me in the News of the World, somebody who could handle the media attention.

But I would also be looking for a friend.

That would be Mark Stephens.

If it was a more serious matter then I would ask for Chris Murray at Kingsley Napley.'Mark Stephens of Stephens Innocent: 'It would depend on exactly what I'd been nicked for.

But Tony Edwards, of T V Edwards, because his knowledge and experience of the magistrates court is unmatched.

If it was a serious fraud then I'd go for Anthony Burton because he has the right mindset for that sort of matter.'