header-logo header-logo

11 October 2007
Issue: 7292 / Categories: Legal News , Profession
printer mail-detail

Defence lawyers attack new fee scheme

News

The graduated fee scheme for Crown court defence litigators, announced last week by the Legal Services Commission (LSC), has been savaged by defence solicitors.

Under the litigators’ graduated fee scheme (LGFS), defence lawyers will be paid a graduated fee per case, which, like the advocates graduated fee scheme, will be determined by factors such as the length/type of case, number of pages of prosecution evidence and number of defendants represented. The LSC says the LGFS—to be introduced January 2008—will produce savings of £11m per year.

Derek Hill, director of the Criminal Defence Service, says: “The fact that fees are graduated will incentivise lawyers to deliver quality for their clients. The LSC believes these are important steps to take to help service providers make the transition to best value tendering, based on quality, capacity and price.”

However, Criminal Law Solicitors’ Association chairman, Ian Kelcey, fears firms will not want to be involved in complicated Crown court cases which will make a loss.

“The LSC talks of incentivising solicitors to work efficiently but regrettably this shows a complete lack of understanding of the criminal justice process. Where is there any incentivisation for the prosecution agencies to work efficiently?

“The LSC by implication suggests that defence solicitors are not efficient now, I find that a scandalous slur on a group of hard-working and committed practitioners.”

He says the LSC shows little or no comprehension of how defence solicitors work: “To prepare a case for trial is significantly more involved than doing the advocacy. Will solicitors be able to travel to see witnesses some distance away from their office without being financially penalised?”
Jim Meyer, a partner at Tuckers Solicitors and London Criminal Courts Solicitors’ Association committee member, says the scheme marks the LSC’s “continued determination to commit quality publicly-funded criminal defence services to the proverbial wastepaper bin”.

He says: “Its claim that the total savings envisaged by this latest version amounts to no more than £11m masks the real losses firms that specialise in particular offences or practise in particular areas will suffer.”
London firms, Meyer says, will see a 17% reduction in fee income, and many may choose not to defend those facing serious sexual offences since the total reduction in fee income for this category of work in London is nearly 27%.

“Firms will have to ‘dumb down’ the service they provide or cease trading. The much-awaited impact assessment will now, apparently, be no more than a ‘bench-marking’ exercise. Talk about shutting the stable door after the horse has bolted,” he adds.

Issue: 7292 / Categories: Legal News , Profession
printer mail-details

MOVERS & SHAKERS

Keystone Law—Milena Szuniewicz-Wenzel & Ian Hopkinson

Keystone Law—Milena Szuniewicz-Wenzel & Ian Hopkinson

International arbitration team strengthened by double partner hire

Coodes Solicitors—Pam Johns, Rachel Pearce & Bradley Kaine

Coodes Solicitors—Pam Johns, Rachel Pearce & Bradley Kaine

Firm celebrates trio holding senior regional law society and junior lawyers division roles

Michelman Robinson—Sukhi Kaler

Michelman Robinson—Sukhi Kaler

Partner joins commercial and business litigation team in London

NEWS
The Legal Action Group (LAG)—the UK charity dedicated to advancing access to justice—has unveiled its calendar of training courses, seminars and conferences designed to support lawyers, advisers and other legal professionals in tackling key areas of public interest law
As the drip-feed of Epstein disclosures fuels ‘collateral damage’, the rush to cry misconduct in public office may be premature. Writing in NLJ this week, David Locke of Hill Dickinson warns that the offence is no catch-all for political embarrassment. It demands a ‘grave departure’ from proper standards, an ‘abuse of the public’s trust’ and conduct ‘sufficiently serious to warrant criminal punishment’
Employment law is shifting at the margins. In his latest Employment Law Brief for NLJ this week, Ian Smith of Norwich Law School examines a Court of Appeal ruling confirming that volunteers are not a special legal species and may qualify as ‘workers’
Criminal juries may be convicting—or acquitting—on a misunderstanding. Writing in NLJ this week Paul McKeown, Adrian Keane and Sally Stares of The City Law School and LSE report troubling survey findings on the meaning of ‘sure’
The Serious Fraud Office (SFO) has narrowly preserved a key weapon in its anti-corruption arsenal. In this week's NLJ, Jonathan Fisher KC of Red Lion Chambers examines Guralp Systems Ltd v SFO, in which the High Court ruled that a deferred prosecution agreement (DPA) remained in force despite the company’s failure to disgorge £2m by the stated deadline
back-to-top-scroll