header-logo header-logo

05 March 2014
Issue: 7597 / Categories: Legal News
printer mail-detail

Defence lawyers stage boycott

MoJ’s “disastrous” final plans for cuts spark stand-off with defence solicitors

The criminal courts are drawing to a halt in a stand-off between defence solicitors and the Ministry of Justice (MoJ) over planned fee cuts.

A day of action is due to take place nationally on Friday (7 March), with barristers and solicitors boycotting court entirely unless their case involves the young or vulnerable and cannot be moved.

The MoJ laid out its final plans for cuts last week, in its response to its consultation, Transforming Legal Aid: Next Steps.

Writing for NLJ online, Justice Gap editor and NLJ columnist Jon Robins says: “For ‘transforming’, read ‘dismantling’.

“Representative groups (with the exception of Chancery Lane) are agreed that [Justice Secretary] Chris Grayling’s announcement is a ‘disaster’ for the profession and public alike.”

The MoJ will reduce duty solicitor fees by 17% in two stages—8.75% for cases starting after 20 March, with a further reduction planned for next year.

An unlimited number of own client contracts for solicitors will be allowed, while the number of duty contracts will be reduced from 1,600 to 525 (210 of which will be in London). 

Criminal Law Solicitors’ Association chair Bill Waddington says the evidence produced by the consultation had been “totally ignored”, and that the result would be mass redundancies and a reduced service to those subject to police investigation or charged with a criminal offence.

Barristers’ Crown court fees will be reduced by 6%, with very high cost cases fees cut by 30%, and a new version of the Advocates Graduated Fees Scheme (AGFS) will be introduced—this will be reviewed after one year.

Nicholas Lavender QC, chair of the Bar Council, said the MoJ’s response “confirmed our worst fears”. 

Even before the current proposals, fees for Crown Court cases had been “savagely” cut by 21% on average since 2007 (a 37% cut in real terms), he said.

The MoJ said it would review ways to minimise the number of pre-trial hearings which require advocates to attend court, and said “more appropriate” fees would be paid in future to defence lawyers where a case is dropped, as well as interim payments during long trials.

 

Issue: 7597 / Categories: Legal News
printer mail-details

MOVERS & SHAKERS

Kennedys—Milan Devani

Kennedys—Milan Devani

Chief information officer appointment strengthens technology leadership

Maguire Family Law—Hannah Barlow & Sophie Hughes

Maguire Family Law—Hannah Barlow & Sophie Hughes

Firm strengthens Wilmslow team with two solicitor appointments

DWF—Ian Plumley

DWF—Ian Plumley

Londoninsurance and reinsurance practice announces partner appointment

NEWS
The Supreme Court has delivered a decisive ruling on termination under the JCT Design & Build form. Writing in NLJ this week, Andrew Singer KC and Jonathan Ward, of Kings Chambers, analyse Providence Building Services v Hexagon Housing Association [2026] UKSC 1, which restores the first-instance decision and curbs contractors’ termination rights for repeated late payment
Secondments, disciplinary procedures and appeal chaos all feature in a quartet of recent rulings. Writing in NLJ this week, Ian Smith, barrister and emeritus professor of employment law at UEA, examines how established principles are being tested in modern disputes
The AI revolution is no longer a distant murmur—it’s at the client’s desk. Writing in NLJ this week, Peter Ambrose, CEO of The Partnership and Legalito, warns that the ‘AI chickens’ have ‘come home to roost’, transforming not just legal practice but the lawyer–client relationship itself
A High Court ruling involving the Longleat estate has exposed the fault line between modern family building and historic trust drafting. Writing in NLJ this week, Charlotte Coyle, director and family law expert at Freeths, examines Cator v Thynn [2026] EWHC 209 (Ch), where trustees sought approval to modernise trusts that retain pre-1970 definitions of ‘child’, ‘grandchild’ and ‘issue’
Fresh proposals to criminalise ‘nudification’ apps, prioritise cyberflashing and non-consensual intimate images, and even ban under-16s from social media have reignited debate over whether the Online Safety Act 2023 (OSA 2023) is fit for purpose. Writing in NLJ this week, Alexander Brown, head of technology, media and telecommunications, and Alexandra Webster, managing associate, Simmons & Simmons, caution against reactive law-making that could undermine the Act’s ‘risk-based and outcomes-focused’ design
back-to-top-scroll