header-logo header-logo

Criminal lawyers take action

03 July 2015
Issue: 7659 / Categories: Legal News , Legal aid focus , Profession
printer mail-detail

Criminal legal aid solicitors across England and Wales were divided on whether to take direct action this week over new contract terms.

Solicitors at meetings in London, Merseyside and Manchester voted unanimously in favour of direct action, agreeing not to accept legal aid work under the new contracts, which were due to begin on 1 July. Solicitors at meetings in Cardiff, Birmingham and East Yorkshire have also backed the action.

The London Criminal Courts Solicitors Association (LCCSA) meeting described the levels of funding about to be introduced as “untenable” and the new two-tier contract scheme “ill-conceived” as it risked “irreparable and unconscionable damage to the criminal justice system”.

However, solicitors in both Leicester and Teeside voted against direct action.

The new contracts impose a further 8.75% cut on solicitors’ fees for criminal legal aid work. Solicitors say it will be uneconomical for them to do the work to the required standard as they would be running at a loss.

LCCSA President Jon Black says: “We have overwhelming support for this action, which regrettably is necessary as a result of the government’s intention to implement cuts and the proposed further cuts amounting to over 50% on some cases for January 2016, without carrying out the promised meaningful review.

“We have drafted a protocol, and firms that seek to act in breach of this are letting themselves, their professional colleagues and their clients down.”

Independent barristers attending the London meeting expressed support and proposed re-introducing a no returns policy for all existing cases in the Crown Court from 1 July. Manchester’s Garden Court North has also announced its support and is adopting a policy of no returns from 1 July.

-

 
Issue: 7659 / Categories: Legal News , Legal aid focus , Profession
printer mail-details

MOVERS & SHAKERS

Pillsbury—Steven James

Pillsbury—Steven James

Firm boosts London IP capability with high-profile technology sector hire

Clarke Willmott—Michelle Seddon

Clarke Willmott—Michelle Seddon

Private client specialist joins as partner in Taunton office

DWF—Rory White-Andrews

DWF—Rory White-Andrews

Finance and restructuring offering strengthened by partner hire in London

NEWS
Mazur v Charles Russell Speechlys LLP [2025] EWHC 2341 (KB) continues to stir controversy across civil litigation, according to NLJ columnist Professor Dominic Regan of City Law School—AKA ‘The insider’
SRA v Goodwin is a rare disciplinary decision where a solicitor found to have acted dishonestly avoided being struck off, says Clare Hughes-Williams of DAC Beachcroft in this week's NLJ. The Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal (SDT) imposed a 12-month suspension instead, citing medical evidence and the absence of harm to clients
In their latest Family Law Brief for NLJ, Ellie Hampson-Jones and Carla Ditz of Stewarts review three key family law rulings, including the latest instalment in the long-running saga of Potanin v Potanina
The Asian International Arbitration Centre’s sweeping reforms through its AIAC Suite of Rules 2026, unveiled at Asia ADR Week, are under examination in this week's NLJ by John (Ching Jack) Choi of Gresham Legal
In this week's issue of NLJ, Yasseen Gailani and Alexander Martin of Quinn Emanuel report on the High Court’s decision in Skatteforvaltningen (SKAT) v Solo Capital Partners LLP & Ors [2025], where Denmark’s tax authority failed to recover £1.4bn in disputed dividend tax refunds
back-to-top-scroll