To those posters whose income is under £37k

[Ilikethebreeze]

The Government is proposing changes to legal aid and to the way lawyers work.

The proposal is that if you earn under £37k you get allocated a lawyer who may not be a specialist in your case, he may be lazy, or have no interest in your case.

If you earn higher than £37k, and can afford it, you can choose which lawyer you want.

So, basically, the more money you have, the better your lawyer might be.

There are also plans to cut the legal aid bill in criminal cases even more [most legal aid for civil cases such as neighbour disputes, and family law disputes has already been cut].

If you do not agree with all this, please could you sign the e-petition in the link. Thank you.

epetitions.direct.gov.uk/petitions/48628

what if you earn over £37k and can't afford a lawyer?

I probably havent worded it very well, because I am not a legal person.
But I was trying to help out to get more signatures on the e-petition.

Sallyingforth seriously?!

You think our choices are roll over and let everything be sold to the lowest bidder, or all out Communism?!

So we shouldn't worry about trivial things such as justice or quality of life, because if we stand in the way of anything done in the name of Capitalism then we're heading for Communism? Do you know how ridiculous that sounds?!

Loads of Americans are against free healthcare for all as they've swallowed the line that it's "socialised medicine" and will lead to Communism.

Has the NHS led us into Communism then? Um, no.

To be fair, I would be grateful getting any solicitor for free. The UK is a bit entitled in some aspects.
I claim tax credits as a single parent, but I have no right to this, it is nice that I get help but noone owes it to me to help us financially. If it was stopped I would have no right to be annoyed, i would be upset and stressed yes, but I wouldn't think it's unfair.

People need to be grateful for what they are getting for free, not complain that it's not enough, or not equal to everyone else. We aren't a communist state.

well the proposals are anyone with disposable income of over £37.5k - that is gross income less tax, national insurance, housing costs, childcare costs and an allowance for normal spending here. These people will also be refunded if they are found innocent. At the moment these people can claim legal aid but have to repay it if found guilty - not much change there.
Also lawyers want to earn money, so why should the new providers be any more or less 'profit focused'.
I also fail to see why everyone will suddenly get shit lawyers - currently there are x lawyers doing this work - if the savings come about, we will have less (i assume). What are the good lawyers currently doing legal aid work going to do? I do not see a huge increase in private work, so will they just give up their jobs?

Oh, you beat me to it aufanie!
Of course the rich have always been able to afford better lawyers, but these changes seek to WIDEN the inequalities even further. In a civilised society, not everything can be about profit. I dont want my sons school sponsored by McDonald's, and I dont want a Tesco lawyer if I get accused of a crime. In America, where Dave gets his ideas, the middle and lower class are shafted. Truly. They pay most of their money to health and legal insurance companies because they are terrified that, should bad luck befall them, they will wind up destitute, or in jail.
And they are told that the alternative is communism. Well, I dont think that out and out capitalism is working out for them either.
it just works out really well for the insurance companies.

Really?

You think if you are accused by the state of a crime (rightly or wrongly) and being convicted of it will affect your livelihood or liberty, that you will be satisfied by being defended by a state appointed representative who is likely to have little interest in defending you at trial as they will not get paid for it?

It is heartbreaking that people do not understand how significant these changes will be.

Hang on, I assumed legal aid was pretty much wiped out years ago. I used to earn £10k and wasn't entitled to legal aid (a solicitor confirmed it when I met them and gave them my income details). I earn £9k now and had to pay for a 30min meeting the other week.

It's all so bloomin' complicated.

Carol - currently legal aid lawyers get paid on a Case by case basis depending on the complexity of the case. They get paid less if you plead guilty early on and more if they fight a trial. Also, if you don't like your lawyer, don't think they are competent, don't true their advice, you can change lawyers.

Under the new proposals you will be allocated a 'lawyer'' (note, they are unlikely to be legally qualified, and certainly not experienced) from Tesco law, Eddie stobart law or however else has said they will do bulk criminal defence work in your local area FOR THE LOWEST PRICE. They will have no interest in fighting your case as they get paid the same fee for every case.

Meglet- legal aid for civil cases has been ended (in all but name) for years now.

These reforms are about criminal legal aid. And access to justice when accused of a crime. That's why I feel it is so scary that the reforms may be made (almost by stealth)

fleetwood ah, thank you. My tired brain wasn't reading it properly.

At the moment, there are QCs and law practices getting vast amounts of public money through legal aid. Here are the figures from Scotland last year:

TOP EARNERS:

Advocates:

1 Gordon Jackson QC £407,600

2 Donald Findlay QC £330,100

3 Brian McConnachie QC £325,100

4 Ian Duguid QC £298,200

5 Anthony Lenehan £264,400

Solicitor advocates:

1 Iain Paterson £194,700

2 William McVicar £188,000

3 John Scott QC £177,300

4 Ian Bryce £176,900

5 Richard Goddard £165,300

Legal firms:

1 Livingstone Brown Solicitors £1,952,200

2 Adams Whyte Solicitors £1,518,300

3 George Mathers & Co Solicitors £1,469,000

4 Turnbull McCarron Solicitors £1,450,400

5 Taylor & Kelly Solicitors £1,306,500

I think the system should be reformed, and like all other public expenditure, should be put out to tender.

Surely those earning under £37k are allocated a free lawyer, while those earning above, and as you phrased it "can afford it" have to pay themselves, therefore being able to choose?? Pretty much the way society works as a whole, isn't it?

AgentProvocateur the proposed changes relate to England, not the Scottish system.

I posted this link on the other thread yesterday, it says that most criminal lawyers are on £35-40K - a decent wage for sure, but hardly megabucks

www.guardian.co.uk/law/2013/may/24/legal-aid-cost-justice

Tbh I really don't get why this is a problem.

We live in a society where money can buy you better healthcare, better education and better legal representation already.

What exactly isthe problem with saying that the poorest will get someone to represent them, but people who can afford it will not? Remember that all the legal aid sols will be qualified, they won't just drag some random man off the street who says he'll do it for 10p and hour.

I don't get why the government has been funding people's 'family disputes' or 'neighbour disputes' anyway? We don't have unlimited money and I'm glad it's not being used on things like this anymore.

The legal aid solicitors are unlikely to be qualified under the new system!

The lawyers are saying that they will not tender for the work as they cannot provide any sort of professional service for the fees that will be in place. This is because lawyers have duties of care to the court etc which they will not be able to meet if they cannot devote the time (which also means more money) to the particular case

Astley the problem is that the solicitors (qualified or not) will have a financial incentive to get clients to plead guilty. Quote from that Guardian article:

"one of Grayling's proposals is that the flat fee will in future cover a not-guilty or a guilty plea, so solicitors have more incentive to get their clients to plead guilty (since a not-guilty plea entails more work). At the moment, 73% of people plead guilty; 8% plead not guilty but are then found guilty; and 18% are acquitted. In other words, two-thirds of the people who plead not guilty do so because they're not guilty. We don't need to labour the point that people who aren't guilty deserve proper legal defence."

If you believe in "innocent until proven guilty" it is evident that this flat fee part is a bad idea.

No where does it even suggest they won't be qualified! Just because the company behind them isn't a law firm does not suggest that in the case of Tesco for example, they'll just use the self stackers if they need someone quick they will still employ qualified people.

Well then rooie is that not a fundamental point to the whole system, and it needs a total overhaul? Pretty crap and unethical that solicitors should just go for the guilty plea, if that is true.

I agree it is the way that society works. Those that can afford it do, and those that can't fall back on the system. There are limited resources available.

Yes, I do fully agree that the whole system needs overhaul Bowlersarm. From arrest to conviction or aquittal. But right now that option is not on the table.

Agent those figures are high but they're not representative of legal aid generally. It's not like looking at a salary, they don't show how much work was done, or when, and it's likely that they represent more than a year's worth of work. They also don't show an individual's expenses. As far as the firms are concerned, it is even harder to interpret. I don't know how big they are, or what they've done for the money. How much do G4S take in state money? It's bound to be a lot. It doesn't mean that the guards working in Court cells are driving around in Porsches.

I think advocates will have to be "qualified" under the new scheme, but that doesn't mean they will have the skills and experience necessary. If you make mistakes in a shoplifting trial, the consequences are not likely to be as severe as in a rape trial. Judging a lawyer's ability is difficult, it's not something that can be quantified and put in a spreadsheet. At the moment, clients can vote with their feet and give work to lawyers/firms who do a good job and take work from those that do a bad job. Under the new scheme, every firm that gets a contract (ie the lowest bidders) will be allocated their work. They can't get any more by being good, or lose any by being bad, so the only incentive is to cut costs to maximise profit. Justice will be an unaffordable luxury.

No-one has answered my question on what the current legal aid solicitors will do - in my head either they work for the companies with the contracts or give up work, I would suggest b is more probable, so you would get the same lawyers as now.
Also currently you can choose any legal aid lawyer, why would you not be able to choose any legal aid lawyer under the new system.
Note again it is disposable income over £37,500, which is significantly more than earning over £37,500 - you would have to be earning, broadly speaking, £70k plus to be impacted.

Yes, the whole £37000 cap is a scare tactic.

I don't get the assumption that you'll automatically get a lousy service.

Procurement is about getting the best possible price for a service which is absolutely necessary when public purse funding is involved. These firms will have to evidence certain standards during their bid and will be subject to regular audit once in contract. Lawyers will just have to change their thinking re charging practices but the point is that they will get volume of work which enables them to bid lower. Add in the fact that their fees are guaranteed to be paid and on time and regularly, it can actually be quite an attractive proposition. There is always resistance to procurement from the private sector but they're having everyone on by saying that they can't provide quality. Time for the legal profession to wake up and accept that tendering for work is a fact of modern day business.

Plus the average solicitor does not want a 100% failure rate! They will have their pride and their future career prospects as a barrier to the assumption that they will put no effort in at all....

I can see why the legal aid professionals are upset, they will probably have to accept a pay cut.

But the mass hysteria over people now getting a solicitor who some believe won't even be qualified and others think will not put in the most basic effort is frankly a little ridiculous.