header-logo header-logo

CBA offers pro bono assistance

18 May 2018
Issue: 7793 / Categories: Legal News , Profession , Criminal
printer mail-detail

Bar prepares to step up protest as burden grows on criminal law solicitors

Criminal law solicitors have warned they cannot be used by the courts as ‘a sticking plaster’ as the Bar prepares to step up its protest against legal aid fees.

The Criminal Bar, where about 100 chambers have been refusing new cases since 1 April, has confirmed it is advising chambers to operate a ‘no returns’ policy from 25 May. This means barristers will refuse to appear at hearings on behalf of an instructed barrister who has to appear in court somewhere else.

Barristers are protesting the Advocates Graduated Fee Scheme (AGFS), which represent a significant cut to counsel’s fees. An attempt by shadow justice secretary Richard Burgon to derail the scheme was defeated in the House of Commons last week.

Bill Waddington, chairman of the Criminal Law Solicitors Association, said: ‘The practical effect of [the Bar action] is to cause significant difficulties for solicitors and clients.

‘That situation is getting worse daily, and there are worrying reports of cases in recent days and weeks of unreasonable pressure being placed on firms and defendants in cases where solicitors have been unable to find counsel.’

He said that while many solicitors applauded what the Bar was doing ‘our members and their clients who are our lifeblood are the collateral damage’. He welcomed the Criminal Bar Association (CBA)’s pledge this week to give pro bono assistance to any solicitors who find themselves in difficult circumstances.

CBA Chair Angela Rafferty QC said the Bar’s action ‘places heavy burdens on our solicitor colleagues, some of whom have been subjected to pressure and to very difficult situations’.

‘Reports have been coming in from Wales that a solicitors’ firm has been treated badly,’ she said.

‘In another case it appears that a very junior employee was given rights of audience in a case; we are investigating this. In the first case a judge reportedly described a Chartered Legal Executive who had been sent at short notice as ‘cannon fodder’ and proceeded to lambast her firm. We are seeking a transcript of this hearing and working closely with our solicitor colleagues how to deal with this.’

Issue: 7793 / Categories: Legal News , Profession , Criminal
printer mail-details

MOVERS & SHAKERS

Carey Olsen—Kim Paiva

Carey Olsen—Kim Paiva

Group partner joins Guernsey banking and finance practice

Morgan Lewis—Kat Gibson

Morgan Lewis—Kat Gibson

London labour and employment team announces partner hire

Foot Anstey McKees—Chris Milligan & Michael Kelly

Foot Anstey McKees—Chris Milligan & Michael Kelly

Double partner appointment marks Belfast expansion

NEWS
The Ministry of Justice (MoJ) has not done enough to protect the future sustainability of the legal aid market, MPs have warned
Writing in NLJ this week, NLJ columnist Dominic Regan surveys a landscape marked by leapfrog appeals, costs skirmishes and notable retirements. With an appeal in Mazur due to be heard next month, Regan notes that uncertainties remain over who will intervene, and hopes for the involvement of the Lady Chief Justice and the Master of the Rolls in deciding the all-important outcome
After the Southport murders and the misinformation that followed, contempt of court law has come under intense scrutiny. In this week's NLJ, Lawrence McNamara and Lauren Schaefer of the Law Commission unpack proposals aimed at restoring clarity without sacrificing fair trial rights
The latest Home Office figures confirm that stop and search remains both controversial and diminished. Writing in NLJ this week, Neil Parpworth of De Montfort University analyses data showing historically low use of s 1 PACE powers, with drugs searches dominating what remains
Boris Johnson’s 2019 attempt to shut down Parliament remains a constitutional cautionary tale. The move, framed as a routine exercise of the royal prerogative, was in truth an extraordinary effort to sideline Parliament at the height of the Brexit crisis. Writing in NLJ this week, Professor Graham Zellick KC dissects how prorogation was wrongly assumed to be beyond judicial scrutiny, only for the Supreme Court to intervene unanimously
back-to-top-scroll