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

Ok this is the MOJ proposal

1. A person from any household whose DIPOSABLE income is over £37500 will not be entitlted to legal aid if arrested or accused of a crime.

1. The number of criminal legal aid contracts will be reduced from the current 1600 to 400 and will be tendered for.

1. Firms other than current law firms will be able to tender. Tesco, G4S and Eddie Stobart have already thrown their hats into the ring. They must tender at least 17.5% below the current rate.

1. There will be a flat fee for the legal representative regardless of whether the legally aided person pleads guilty or not guilty i.e trial or no trial.

1. Persons earning over 37500 disposable income who employ their own lawyer will not get their full costs back even if found not guilty. This will amount to about one quarter to one third of the costs.

1. A legally aided person will have no choice of their legal representative, who will be allocated to them. They will not be able to change from that representative.

1. Defence barristers fees to be reduced. For trials fee tapering introduced so that the barrister gets paid less the longer a trial goes on.

SO THAT MEANS

1. At least 1200 law firms will go out of business and their partners will be declared bankrupt. Once banKrupt they can no longer work as lawyers, so they hit the dole queue and start claiming benefits.. any savings already going down.

1. The partners in firms are usually the most experienced lawyers, they will be lost to the public forever as they will not be allowed to practice.

1. The likes of Eddie Stobart, G4S and Tesco can bid far lower than the current firms. They can even operate on a loss (to start with) There is nothing to stop them winning all of the contracts in the various areas that are up for grabs. Probably all 1600 current law firms go out of business. These are the same high street firms that advise on all areas of law that can affect the individual e.g. child care, divorce etc

1. The reason for the removal of choice is so that the winning firms get volume, otherwise they cannot make a profit. So you are stuck with a lawyer who might not be competent for the type of case you are accused of.

1. The winning bidders could only afford to employ inexperienced lawyers. Experienced lawyers... the ones who used to work for the other firms will not work for the money that they would be able to pay. Don't forget lawyers are bright people with lots of transferable skills and will go off to other jobs or other areas of law.

1. Once the competition has well and truly died off. the winning bidders can demand more money, because the MOJ has handed them a monopoly on a plate. this happened with the court interpreters contract, where the MOJ has had to increase the fees by 22% at the demand of Capita (they bought off the other winning bidders)

1. There is a financial incentive for the lawyer for a person to plead guilty. A loss will be made for a trial and the longer a trial goes on the bigger the loss. The affect of this is that more people will plead guilty, because of pressure from theior own representatives, who in turn will have prtessure on them from the board of directors. At the moment 2/3 of people who go to trial are found not guilty. This tells us that the vast majority of people who are guilty already plead guilty and the vast majority of people who plead not guilty plead that way because they are not guilty. therefore we are likely to have miscarriages of justice, because of wrong advice and money not being spent on oinvestigating the defences of persons going to trial.

1. Miscarriages of justice cost a lot of money in Appeals.

1. G4S run 6 prisons in the country, they also transport people to court and guard them in the court house. If they win a contract they will have a bigger incentive for you to plead guilty and carry you off to one of their prisons.

10. If you do have to pay privately, ir will cost you a fortune. Even if innocent you won't get your fees back. Thereby clearing your name but leaving you financially ruined.... a finger pointers charter!

I could continue on and on... but I think you are getting the picture.

Also the MOJ have no plan B, for when it all goes wrong and it surely will they cannot go back to how it was.. all the lawyers have gone.

Woah that's a lot of assumptions.

Most of the 'surplus' lawyers will move to other firms or close their firms. It's slightly concerning you imagine they will all cling on under they are made bankrupt and barred from practice

Frankly the comment about the former lawyers living off benefits is laughable as you mention further down how many 'transferable skills' they have!

Your solicitor cannot MAKE you plead guilty. Financial incentive or not, if you are not guilty or not not want to plead not guilty, no one can make you do it.

Astley

Afraid it not a lot of assumptions

The loss of a MINIMUM of 1200 firms is confirmed in the Governments own impact assessment of the proposals.

Reasons they will go bankrupt.

1. As soon as it is known that they haven't got a contract banks will start to withdraw their facilities, even though they will still have a year to go on the current contract and cannot just duck out of it.

1. The majority have buildings subject to commercial leases. They cannot get out of those, or the cost of them and will be personally liable even though they have no contract and no business.

1. During the year that they have for the remainder of their contract their staff will deplete as they jump ship in the knowledge that they will not have jobs at that firm and may have to pass work bigger firms, who are still affloat.

You are right no one can be MADE to plead guilty, but people can be persuaded, particularly at their most vulnerable.

Former bankrupt lawyers would be on benefits, they would be foolish to get jobs until discharged.

Firms already making lawyers redundant due to these proposals being on the horizon and on the back of recent 13.5% reductions in fees.

Closing and going bankrupt are entirely different.

Law firms currently dependent on legal aid work will need to diversify - no different from any other profession.

No firm will be able to force prices up as they simply won't get a contract in future.

There will be evidence required as to professional standards being maintained.

In the majority of law firms, the donkey work is already done by less qualified staff - this doesnt mean unqualified or inexperienced. No firm can afford to be top heavy.

Lawyers are not going to disappear but they are doing a damn good job of invoking mass hysteria over this.

The disposable income figure is not a scare tactic. It is a reality. Clearly the number of people in the country who will be affected by such changes is relatively small, however the potential pool of people who could be affected is a significant proportion of the population.

But it is not just people who may, unexpectedly, become accused of crime that need to be concerned. Barristers prosecute and defend trials in the Crown Court. The fees are fixed for the majority of cases. Those fees were fixed at a level of reasonable remuneration by an independent Government review in 2007. The rates set then represented a saving for the Govt. Since that time the Bar have had those rates reduced by at least 25%. No increase due to inflation in that time and actual reductions. Those reductions have already led to over £150million being saved from the Legal Aid spend from last year to this year.

Now the Government have come back for more cuts. The point the Bar make is that there have been significant cuts and further cuts cannot be made or survived. Barristers are now looking to move away from crime to other areas of work which is more lucrative. That means for the public that those practitioners will be lost to the public to prosecute those serious cases that have an impact on us all.

To just correct one or two inaccuracies above - the client will no longer be able to chose a solicitor as they will be allocated a solicitor in order to make sure those solicitors with contracts have enough work. If you pay for your own defence the amount you can claim back is limited to what the legal aid would have paid your lawyer notwithstanding the fact that there is no such limit as to what the CPS can claim if you are convicted. Very few defendants are required to pay back their legal aid, perhaps they should. Lots of serious criminals have their assets restrained by the state which then qualifies them for legal aid. Why not release those funds to pay their lawyers? If you qualifiied for legal aid and choose to pay for a better lawyer yourself you will be expressly barred from claiming your costs back.

It has been suggested that the quality of lawyers will remain the same. It is not true. Do not take my word for it. The MOJ admit it. The consultation document talks of the quality of lawyers remaining in the legal aid sector as being "acceptable". That is not aiming for excellence or specialist. Just a low level of competency. At a meeting with the MOJ civil servants were asked if they accepted that quality would be lowered and the closest they got to admitting it was they accepted it would produce a "different level" of quality. Paying less and reducing the numbers of lawyers working on public funded cases is not going to move it to a different level that is an imporovement.

Sorry to go on. If you would like more information I have a blog which you may want to read at jaimerhblog.wordpress.com/

Thank you for reading.

The scariest thing about these proposals by far is that they can be foisted on the country merely on the say-so of the Lord Chancellor, who clearly doesn't have a clue about how the legal system works. It's secondary legislation so doesn't have to be discussed in parliament.
If you think such an important and far-reaching change is at least worthy of discussion and should not simply be railroaded through on a whim, please sign this:

epetitions.direct.gov.uk/petitions/48628

It's already on over 60,000 signatures and needs 100,000 for a parliamentary debate.

I should add that I am not a lawyer, nor am I married to one, nor am I related to any lawyers, nor have I ever had need of one apart from house conveyancing and the occasional insurance claim dispute. I do, however, care about maintaining access to justice for all, and am extremely concerned about how our essential services are being sold off bit-by-bit to the lowest bidder, usually corporate megaliths with names like G4S, Capita, Serco, etc. etc., whose loyalty is not to those they are supposed to serve, but to their shareholders. These names crop up again and again, as they continue to be offered government contracts despite inadequate or downright shoddy performance on previous occasions.

Jaimereh. The scare tactic is the OP screaming 'all these posters earning more than 37 k' which isn't the case at all! It's not earning over 37k, it's having 37k disposable income. 2 totally different figures.

The OP is trying to whip up mass panic based on false figures

Astley, I only went by what I gleaned over on the other thread.
As I have said, I have no legal connections at all, so have had to learn all this stuff from scratch.
It actually took me about 4 goes before I could even construct the op as it stands.
Have you read my other posts on the other thread where I was trying to get my head round it all?

Astley there is no danger of mass panic because most people are law abiding and don't think that these changes are going to affect them.

The OP is trying to raise awareness of changes that are going to be slipped in without any debate. The mistake around the exact figures is just that, a mistake.

In any case, the proposals are also based on "false figures". The projected £220 million savings are based on out of date figures that don't take account of the last round of cuts.

Astley - it is a widely held mistake that the figure is an income of £37k but the disposable income figure captures 7 million of the UK's taxpayers as individuals. Imagine how many it captures as a household? I don't think that the OP is trying to whip up mass panic. I would suggest it was an error. And is certainly no more misleading than other figures quoted by the MOJ.

If you want so more detailed information try www.mfjc.co.uk/home/mfjccou1/public_ftp/page28/

As a side access to legal aid for private law family matters (apart from some limited exceptions) ended on 1 April 2013. There are now two choices you pay for advice / representation or represent yourself. One CAB is simply not able to cope with offering advice and set up an email helpline for people to get help from students studying at the Chester branch of the University of Law but it only operates during term times... www.cwcab.org.uk/collegeoflaw_tandc.html

And yes Solicitors are closing down and going bust www.lawgazette.co.uk/news/blakemores-intervention-will-cost-3m-managing-partner-says

Some are just giving up doing legal aid - www.sheltons-solicitors.co.uk/2012/10/sheltons-and-legal-aid/

And CAB's are also being hit so don't expect the local CAB to pick up strain - www.thisisthewestcountry.co.uk/news/cornwall_news/10192317._Majority__of_Citizen_s_Advice_staff_in_Cornwall_made_redundant/

The fees for Family Work have already been cut by 10% and the Ministry of Justice now wants to cut the figures again by a further 10% -

It would be helpful to note that the current levels of remuneration for Legal Aid work in respect of Family work is in fact now lower than in February 1994 when the hourly rate for advocacy in court was in £65.00, the hourly rate for this work, effective 1st April 2013, is £64.35. Far from increasing the hourly rate for such work is now some £0.65 lower than 19 years ago. By a rough calculation allowing for inflation £64.00 in 1994 would now equate to £111.80. I am no economist but that seems to equate to a real reduction in the hourly rate payable of £47.45.

The consultation now seeks a further 10% reduction in fees, so using the above figure the 1994 hourly rate would reduce from £64.00 by a further £6.43 to £57.57 or an inflation adjusted reduction £54.23.

Before pointing the finger of blame at lawyers regarding the increase costs of the family justice system a significant factor in the increase in costs is the sheer increase in the volume in cases ? the number of public law application has risen from 6,488 in 2008/09 to 10,119 in 2011/12, a 56% increase. It is an obvious point to make but it needs making - if you increase the volume of work by over 50% costs are very likely to rise.

Figures are here

www.cafcass.gov.uk/news/2013/april_2013_care_application_statistics.aspx

In April 2013, Cafcass received a total of 908 applications. This is a 20% increase on April 2012, and the highest ever recorded by Cafcass for the month of April.

And it needs to be made clear this increase is down to work undertaken by Local Authority?s to protect children from harm. These cases are not disputes between adults which could be resolved by mediation these are matters of child protection were the stakes are high with the potential for children to be returned to a family and suffer further harm or for parents to be faced with their child being adopted for want of adequate advice and representation.

Hello
We have moved this to our petitions noticeboard but do feel free to keep it bumped
Thanks
MNHQ

Thank you OliviaMMumsnet.

My op now has "click here to upload a picture for your ad".
Anyone know what that means?
I dont like to click on something I dont understand.

Hi all

There seems to be an awful lot of confusion in this thread. The bottom line is this:

If you qualify for legal aid (and there are a significant amount of restrictions) you will NOT be able to choose your legal representative. You will be allocated a duty solicitor who will have won a contract based on the lowest bid (PCT, Price Competitive Tendering.)
They will be working on a fixed fee basis. That fee being the same for a guilty or not guilty plea. If the client decided to plead 'not guilty' and go to trial, defence council would be working for a simply ludicrous fee. At the meeting on 23rd May the MOJ were asked "Do you really expect barristers to work for £15 per day?" The MOJ's response..."You have your figures wrong. It will be £14 per day." I dread to think of the quality of legal representation that fee would attract.

Currently defence lawyers (on some legal aid contracts) are paid by page count of used material. What is used material is dictated by the CPS. Often in a trial there are 20,000+ pages of 'unused' material. There are numerous examples of unused material containing the vital piece of information or evidence which affects the outcome of a trial. Would you read 20,000 pages for free when your daily rate is £14 per day?
Currently on legal aid 'Graduated fee' contracts defence counsel does not get paid for the 2nd and last day of a contract....

I cite salary to draw attention to the quality of defence counsel which will be made available to you if Grayling's 'reforms' go ahead.
You may be in the 'But I'm a law abiding citizen' club. Can I then draw your attention to the following article? abarristerswife.wordpress.com/2013/05/05/exhibit-a-the-child-pornographer/

The argument that "those who can afford it will still get good legal representaion/it's the way society has always been" I simply do not understand. Are you suggesting it is a good thing? Also, I'm sure you are aware that in 2009 the 'Right to choose your NHS hospital' was introduced. Meaning you can request your GP refers you to a NHS hospital of your choice. Your choice.

I feel this is a very important issue. If you agree then please sign the petition below. If you disagree then don't sign. It's your choice....

epetitions.direct.gov.uk/petitions/48628

I feel I must contribute. I am a Criminal Barrister and have been for 20 years. I prosecute and defend. I specialise in serious sexual offences, child abuse (historic and current) and serious violence, particularly domestic and child cruelty. My children are 7 and 11 years old. I am married, but the main breadwinner.
Over the last 20 years my income has gradually gone down, by about 40%. That is fine. I love my job and have felt I still earned enough to warrant the hard work. It is a vocation. I see and hear things most of you could not begin to imagine and would not want to. All this work has been done either for the CPS or under Legal Aid. In fact I have only had two privately paid cases in my whole career. That is because most people charged with serious criminal offences get legal aid at the moment (let's not worry about Footballers shall we) Even if they have to pay a contribution. I have prosecuted serial rapists, substantial paedophile rings and murderers. The last case I prosecuted (a rapist I had successfully prosecuted 3 years earlier) I was paid less than £35 an hour. A young man (age 19) I recently defended against serious sexual offences charges was acquitted and I was paid £38.22 an hour for his case. If you think that is too much, fine. At the moment I am prepared to accept it is just enough.
I have represented many children (as young as 11), some charged with sexual offences and done my best to ensure their young lives have not been ruined by misguided prosecutions or just damn lies.
I am described as at the top of my profession. I am a grade 4 prosecutor which is the highest grade. I am instructed because I work hard and fearlessly for the party who instructs me. I am completely independent and am not intimidated by a bad tempered judge or high ranking police officer.
I try hard to have a good work life balance. As a result I work late at night. I do this because I have pride in my work.
If you can't understand why I won't do this work for 20% less than I already do I will never make you understand. What I will do, and the many hundreds of Barristers like me, is sadly find something else. I am already re-training. I will go do Health and Safety work, work for the GMC or the Financial Services Commission.
Do not doubt that the majority of the English and Welsh public charged with criminal offences will be represented by low paid inexperienced lawyers nabbed as they leave law school. Do not doubt that the rapists and paedophiles of tomorrow will be prosecuted by lawyers who don't do overtime, don't have the necessary experience and do not see the job as a vocation.
When someone asks me to defend them at the moment I do it. I can never promise them an outcome, but I always make them a promise: they will have my best. My best is apparently pretty damn good according to the CPS and the solicitors who instruct me now. You may think you will never need a good criminal lawyer. If you drive, have kids, go to a pub occasionally or just leave the house from time to time you just might. If these proposals go through you are not going to be able to instruct me look me up, check out my reputation. The government will assign you a lawyer based on your surname or date of birth. And you won't be able to change when you discover their inexperience or incompetence. So good luck.
Sign the petition or don't sign it. That's the joy of a democracy.

A wonderful post Barristermumoftwo. Thank you.

Barrister, thank you for the work that you do to see justice done. Whichever side of the legal fence you are on in any one day.

Barristermum
Great post.

Barristermumoftwo. Well said and that £38.22 per hour also has to see you through those weeks when you don't work!

I hope astley, and the other " oh but it's just capitalism" posters have read barristermumoftwo's post. I couldn't do what she does. Not for double what she gets paid, but I am glad that people like her are there doing it. Criminal law, like teaching and medicine, should be a vocation. The current and proposed changes will change who represents YOU irrevocably.

Barristermumoftwo. Well said and that £38.22 per hour also has to see you through those weeks when you don't work!

....but you still incur significant expenses.

I really feel that those of you who are saying that this is just capitalism either don't understand the issues or haven't thought about them fully. I may be wrong.

Capitalism has absolutely no place in a system (like outs) that says you are innocent until proven guilty. This is particularly apparent where we have a situation where gross miscarriages of justice or prosecutions which are completely without foundation (like that in the barrister's wife blog) happen.

Those of you saying that Tesco law won't employ unqualified lawyers are wrong. They will offer school lever minimum wage to "process cases" (NB not run a defence) based on ticking boxes on a computer programme. They will be pressurise to increase their profitability on those cases by not spending much time on them. Mistakes will be made because the wrong box was ticked one day. There will be qualified lawyers - but they will be spread out, supervising 20 or 40 case workers and will almost certainly be overworked.

As for the poster that suggested criminal law firms diversify, most of them can't. They are small, specialist criminal practices with no other areas of law. You don't want an inexperienced lawyer writing your will because he can't do criminal work any more, any more than you want an inexperienced school leader defending you against a rape claim.

The only way they could "diversify" is to bolt on to a bigger law firm, like mine. But we don't want them, because the work is too costly to do, unprofitable and, for the most part, it has no cachet.

Barristermum will probably tell you that he would rather guilty people go free than innocent people get jailed. That is how justice works. It's not going to be how it works after these changes are made.

Here's the rather pathetic response from the MoJ. See if you can spot the embarrassing typo!
epetitions.direct.gov.uk/petitions/48628

Not just the hilarious typo, but several grammatical errors too. Clearly the MoJ didn't put much effort into their reply.