More than 1,000 lawyers protest outside parliament at legal aid cuts

[ttosca]

Former Tory MP Sir Ivan Lawrence QC tells protesters he is ashamed of government for 'destroying criminal justice system'

---

More than 1,000 barristers and solicitors – many bearing placards declaring "Grayling must go" and accompanied by a giant, papier-mache effigy of the justice secretary – have protested outside parliament at cuts to criminal legal aid in their first full-day walkout.

Sir Ivan Lawrence QC, the former Conservative MP, told the demonstration he was ashamed of the government's destruction of the justice system. Across England and Wales thousands of prosecutions were interrupted or postponed as defendants were left without legal representation.

The disruption will continue for several weeks as barristers refuse to accept "returns" – cases that they would normally cover when other members of their chambers are unable to attend court.

The scale of the protest was intended to send a message to Chris Grayling, the justice secretary, that the £215m cut to the annual criminal legal aid budget will drive many solicitors and barristers out of the profession and leave defendants without expert lawyers to argue their cases. Barristers and solicitors are facing average fee cuts of 6% and 17.5% respectively.

At the rally, which took place opposite the House of Commons, Lawrence said: "I'm ashamed of this government. I have been a Conservative for 60 years of my life. Never has there been a demonstration like this. It's atrocious that this government has forced us to come and behave like this.

"All my life I have been opposed to strikes and industrial action that are not justified. This action is justified. [The government] think we don't have any resolve. We are going resolved to stop them destroying the criminal justice system which my party, supporting law and order, has held so dear."

Senior QCs, human rights leaders, barristers in wigs and gowns, solicitors and supporters held placards declaring: "Fight for legal aid," "Save UK justice" and "Be afraid without legal aid."

The actor Maxine Peake, who plays barrister Martha Costello in the TV series Silk, supported the protest. She said: "[Martha] would not have been able to join the Bar if she was starting out now. There would be no opportunity for her."

The Criminal Bar Association said almost 2,000 fewer cases had been scheduled to be heard at crown courts on Friday compared to the previous Friday as court clerks and judges re-arranged their lists to avoid hearing cases where defendants would be left unrepresented.

Nigel Lithman QC, the chairman of the CBA, said: "If these cuts are not addressed then the British justice system, which is held in such high esteem around the world, will cease to exist as we know it and the British public can no longer expect true justice to be delivered."

www.theguardian.com/law/2014/mar/07/lawyers-protest-parliament-legal-aid-cuts

[longfingernails]

Naturally, there aren't any legal aid fat cats troughing at the taxpayer's expense.

www.express.co.uk/news/uk/451661/More-than-1-200-barristers-paid-100k-plus-in-legal-aid-last-year-MoJ-reveals

Oh, oops. There are.

The lawyers can dissemble all they want - no doubt plenty of sob stories will be brought to bear. Ultimately, though, they believe getting rich defending scum like Abu Qatada is more important than being prudent with the national finances.

[ReindeerBollocks]

Oh please, take your Daily Mail propaganda and shove it up your arses.

The barristers making a packet are those who are doing extremely complex and long trials. Those who are generally 20+ years qualified and for some are QC's/Judges and those who form the top of the judiciary. Of course their fees are higher.

There will be no bar at all if these proposals go through.

In the north west there has been a drastic reduction of intakes at the criminal bar ( what's the point when your take home pay is less than 20K); there has been no new duty solicitors for the last four years.

We are not denying reform is needed but this will destroy access to criminal justice, why would anyone train so long to do the job, only to get paid peanuts.

To all the people who think the reforms should take place - what wage would you think is appropriate for solicitors/barristers who are dealing with potential loss of liberty on a daily basis??

[ReindeerBollocks]

*Dealing with the loss of people's liberty on a daily basis.

[longfingernails]

You've lost in the Court of Public Opinion. And there's no point appealing.

This government certainly won't listen to a bunch of moaning lawyers whinging that their cause is more important - but do you really think increasing legal aid is going to be a priority for a Labour government either? Red Ed's priority will be to buy and entrench Labour votes by increasing welfare; fat cat lawyers won't even be on his radar.

Your best hope is to accept the sentence with good grace.

[Viviennemary]

It's not a question of how much they should be paid but a question of who is going to pay it. Not the public purse for any longer in a lot of cases.

[LauraBridges]

Long, most lawyers dont' go anywhere near legal aid work (I never have) so any cut backs do not directly affect our work. Many of those doing legal aid are not very well paid. you pointed to a link of some receiving last year over £100k. That is often for 4 years of work paid at once so you need to divide it up and it is before expenses. A you will know if you buy cars at £100 and sell them at £110 you make £10 not £110 and it is the same for barristers. It is not their profit, just their turnover.

What will happen is bright lawyers will make the choice I made 30 years ago - avoid legal aid work. The result will be fewer good lawyers to represent those who are involved in criminal proceedings (unless you happen to be rich and can pay private rate fees).

As I said above the cuts won't be reversed and my advice for decades to bright young lawyers has always been avoid criminal work and will continue to be so. Go for the commercial bar. Seek to earn up to £2m a year. Be the best, particularly women. We need more good women.

[MissBeehiving]

The irony is that the lack of proper representation will just make the courts much more expensive because the process will be clogged up by unrepresented defendants.

[PastPerfect]

These threads make me despair - I gave up criminal work years ago and now earn a "fat cat salary" as a corporate lawyer. That means when the system goes to pot - which it will - I will be able to buy justice for myself and my family should I need to.

And make no mistake that is what the public are being sold: the poor, disenfranchised and vulnerable will be screwed over whilst the rich will have a get out of jail free card. That is not the way justice should work. But you know what? When I read these narrow minded misinformed threads I think if the public don't care, why should I because I'll be ok. And then I remember that such a view would make me an arse of the highest order.

[AntoinetteCosway]

I have a friend who's a criminal barrister.

She's 30 and she's never earned enough to pay tax.

[Sillybillybob]

I do Legal Aid work (albeit Immigration not Crime). I qualified as a solicitor 6 years ago. I earn very little compared to my commercial law friends. In fact, where I live, I earn considerably less than some of our dustmen. I'd like to think that 4 years of degree level study, plus a year of post-graduate qualification plus 2 years of training could make me worth more than that.

It doesn't.

I generally work with asylum seekers (most immigration work is also not now covered by Legal Aid) so I am helping people to get permission to stay in a place of safety where they are no longer in danger of being raped, murdered etc etc.

Good job that's not important.

And even I am better off than those who practise crime. It's terrifying to think what is going to happen when the standard of representation falls, as it must.

For me, I'd like to earn more, who wouldn't, but my job satisfaction is worth more to me. And knowing that someone's life is safe is invaluable.

[LauraBridges]

PP is correct.

The mumsnet divorce threads already show the impact - more people doing it themselves as there is no legal aid and many of those women don't earn anything or not enough to pay for a lawyer. Mind you a lot of financial issues over divorce are better off agreed between the couple anyway so that is not all bad.

[VivaLeBeaver]

My friend who lives in fear of her dh can't afford a solicitor to advise her about how to get him out he house or to sort out an occupation order.

As he's violent technically she's entitled to legal aid and has applied for it months and months ago. She's still waiting to hear but as she's too scared to have called the police when he's beaten her up she's unlikely to get legal aid.

So she and her dc continue to live with him.

[Sillybillybob]

And once I'm done dealing with the DCs this morning I will explain why AQ aS entitled to get Legal Aid.

The issue there lies with the idiot Theresa May who couldn't be bothered to do her job properly to ensure that the Yemeni government weren't going to involve torture from the start. The Legal Aid bill would have been considerably lower if she was less bothered with all the pomp and bluster and more bothered with actually getting her job done well.

[weird2014]

For a highly qualified profession whose roles depend on making strong arguments I think their campaign is seriously flawed.

A spokesperson who openly says he believed others were wrong to strike and take industrial action smacks of a total lack of empathy for others and that social conscience they are arguing leads them to undertake such lowly paid work.

Further I do not believe that a campaign led by bewigged, gowned protesters will strike many chords with the general public as this will be seen as an outmoded uniform of the privileged.

I know that many lawyers by no means earn the huge salaries others may expect and cuts in legal aid mean many people are unable to access justice but I feel the campaign would be far better illustrating such cases and the real impact on justice.

[Icimoi]

weird, you don't imagine the demonstration is the only thing being done, do you? The government has been provided with details of countless cases where people are unable to access justice but have largely ignored them; they have even ignored the views of the very barristers they instruct. They also ignored the major expense and delay now being caused in the courts because they have to deal with so many more litigants representing themselves. The fact is that they are carrying on with it because they think it is popular with people like Daily Mail readers. Their total lack of any moral principle is absolutely staggering.

[LauraBridges]

(Viva, it may be that they cannot find a solicitor prepared to do legal aid as the pay is so bad. She does have a right to litigate herself, though. Could she not download the forms and male her application to exclude her violent husband from the home? I am not saying that will be easy but it is an option)

[weird2014]

I don't imagine the demo is the only thing they have done but it is the thing in the papers and even the Guardian quotes someone who, in my opinion, does the cause no favours, they surely could have found a better spokesperson. It will be hard enough to persuade the public that this is not about feeding fat cats and defending terrorism and I do not think the focus of this has helped.

[Icimoi]

Honestly, this nonsense about fat cats really needs to be put to bed. Legal aid rates have not gone up for 20 years, and in fact have been reduced. How many working people would put up with that? Every penny claimed by lawyers is very carefully scrutinised and has to be fully justified, and if the Legal Aid Agency can possibly find an excuse to pay nothing, it does so.

The government deliberately twists the stats when it publishes details of what individual firms are paid, "forgetting" to mention that it is usually payment for years of work by a number of people, and that they cover not just individuals' pay but also all the costs of running a legal aid lawyers practice - which involves ludicrous amounts of administration.

All the people supporting this need to think about what will happen in a few years' time if another Sally Clark or Angela Canning case comes up. They just won't be able to find competent lawyers able to help them, because if these reforms go through only people with independent means will be able to contemplate going into criminal law - and really, why would anyone want to subsidise the government in that way?

[Catkinsthecatinthehat]

Here's an interesting article by Jerry Hayes who is a former Tory MP and a barrister.

It's all worth reading the entire thing - particularly his points that the reforms provide a financial incentive for firms to persuade innocent people towards a guilty plea - but the highlights are

Grayling has consistently told both the press and more seriously, the Commons that the criminal legal aid budget is out of control. Yet he knows that it has been radically reduced since 2008. From £1.2bn to just over £800 million today.

Grayling has told the press and the Commons that barristers are fat cats slurping the taxpayers cream. Yet he knows that our fees have been reduced by over 40% before the new tranche of cuts. My income has been cut by half.

Grayling has told the press and the Commons that the VHCC fees are too high and have to be cut by 30%. Yet he knows the amount spent on the most complicated and costly cases has been falling over the last few years.

Grayling has told the press and the Commons that we have the most expensive criminal legal aid system in Europe. Yet he knows that we are ranked at number ten out of fourteen.

[ParsingFancy]

Grayling's been on my radar a while, because he pushed through the disability cuts and welfare restructuring at DWP before moving on to Justice.

That's exactly consistent with the level of dishonesty he showed at DWP. Combined with really not giving a fuck about the actual outcomes of policies.

[LCHammer]

Grayling is a wanker. From the limited direct corespondence I've had with him. Not surprised he's distorting facts either.

[Icimoi]

He's been equally dishonest about judicial review. He keeps trotting out the fact that thousands are started each year yet only a few claimants ultimately end up winning after a hearing. What he artistically fails to mention is that that is because, when a public authority is misbehaving (e.g. a local authority blatantly failing to comply with its duty to provide for a child's SN) they tend to give in when a judicial review claim is started because they know that they have no defence whatsoever. Therefore the reality is that thousands of judicial reviews actually come to an end shortly after being started having resulted in what is on any interpretation a thumping victory for the claimant.

Grayling knows that perfectly well, not least because he was told it several times when there was a consultation on JR last year. However, having not been happy with the results of that consultation, he then brought another when he came up with precisely the same lies.

So he's been told the truth yet again, but has gone ahead with proposals to cut down legal aid for judicial review severely anyway. And the result will be that government departments and local authorities now know that they can get away with blatantly unlawful behaviour that much more easily from now on.

I've seen some pretty awful things in government over the course of my life, but this government is the most cynically dishonest and uncaring I have ever had the misfortune to come across.

[ParsingFancy]

So Grayling-speak: "yet only a few claimants ultimately end up winning after a hearing."

Normal-speak: "thousands of claimants ultimately end up winning, many without even needing a hearing."

That's Grayling in a nutshell. Literally true, but giving a message entirely untrue. All clever wordplay. Calculated to deceive.

[Spero]

The problem is people don't understand or don't care to understand the difference between lawyers in private practice and lawyers paid by the state.

Lawyers in private practice charge what the market will allow. Lawyers paid by the state are paid what the state decides. I deliberately did NOT pursue a career at the criminal bar 20 years ago because I did not want to travel 10 miles and be paid £10.65 for a bail app.

I now represent parents in care proceedings, 90% of whom have no or very limited incomes so without legal aid they would not get representation.

If you think that's fine because they are feckless dole scum, then great. Just don't come bleating to me when it's you or your family charged with a crime or about to have your child taken into care and you have a choice between a Tescos lawyer or nothing at all.

But I have to say, as I said on the last thread, the Criminal bar Association have been generally woeful in making their case over the years.

[lauralouise90]

There's so much more than meets the eye with these legal cuts. I've been reading these tweets (twitter.com/tbilaw) and it's really eye opening about what's going on.

£23K a year for 60 hours a week - no sick pay or holiday is absolutely disgusting - I'd be walking out for that alone!