Co-defendents: criminal lawyers insist postponement not caused by DCA and LSC complaints


The Law Society Council has temporarily averted a showdown with the Department for Constitutional Affairs (DCA) over a proposed conflict of interest rule that would free criminal defence solicitors from acting for co-defendants.


At the council meeting in Bristol last week, a decision on introducing the rule - which would bring in a presumption of a conflict where solicitors act for co-defendants - was deferred until December while the wording is re-considered.



The decision to postpone introduction of the rule followed objections from the DCA and the Legal Services Commission (LSC). Both bodies argued that there was no particular problem with the existing rules, and that there would be a potentially significant cost impact if the presumption was introduced (see [2004] Gazette, 16 September, 1).



In a letter to the Society, the DCA also warned that any budgetary impact would mean 'there will be less resource to tackle social exclusion' and would increase pressure on the criminal justice system.


The draft conflict rule was put forward by the Law Society's criminal law committee in response to a change by the DCA to the Criminal Defence Service Regulations in May.


The revised regulations now require that only one solicitor is appointed to act for co-defendants unless there is, or there is likely to be, a conflict. Previously the regulations simply permitted the appointment of a solicitor to act for co-defendants unless there was a conflict.


Council member Rodney Warren, director of the Criminal Law Solicitors Association (CLSA), denied that the deferral meant that the Society had caved in to government pressure.


Arguing that the Society had made its wishes 'quite plain', he said: 'I do not consider the DCA and the LSC's concerns over increased expenditure to be well founded. This is not about money - it is about the ethical position. Solicitors are being put under pressure in various ways that can be contrary to the interests of justice.'


Mr Warren added: 'It is nevertheless very important that any rule that is formulated, and the guidance that backs it, is clear. We are all agreed that, to make sure the rule-making is of the best quality, it is appropriate to spend more time on it.'


The Society's standards board has been asked to issue interim guidance in consultation with the criminal law committee.