header-logo header-logo

Law Society: scale back or withdraw over criminal legal aid

09 October 2024
Issue: 8089 / Categories: Legal News , Profession , Criminal , Legal aid focus
printer mail-detail

Criminal solicitors have been advised by their own professional body to consider quitting rather than ‘hanging on’ if they find criminal legal aid work financially unviable

The Law Society crossed the threshold this week into recommending firms stop waiting for a government decision on fees, review the viability of each part of their criminal practice and, if not viable, stop all or part of their police station and court work.

Last November, it issued a practice note advising solicitors on circumstances where they might refuse police station and court work—areas which received a 9% increase in fees rather than the minimum 15% recommended by the 2021 criminal legal aid independent review (CLAIR). In January, its judicial review against the government’s failure to implement CLAIR succeeded. The general election thwarted action on this, and the new government’s first budget is not until 30 October.

The Ministry of Justice (MoJ) has now said it will announce its decision on fee rates in November—but has asked firms to tender before this for ten-year legal aid contracts due to start next year.

However, incoming Law Society president Richard Atkinson said: ‘We can no longer ask firms to hold on in the hope of action from government that may never come.

‘We recommend firms examine the viability of each type of criminal legal aid work they undertake to decide if they should scale back or withdraw altogether until there is meaningful action by the new government.’

An MoJ spokesperson said: ‘The new government inherited a justice system under enormous strain and a criminal legal aid system facing significant challenges.

‘Criminal defence lawyers play an essential role in ensuring that justice is done. While any decision on future government funding is subject to the upcoming Spending Review, we are committed to working with the legal profession to support the sustainability of the market both now and in the future.’

Issue: 8089 / Categories: Legal News , Profession , Criminal , Legal aid focus
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