Hitler discusses the legal aid reforms
Discussion
singlecoil said:
Breadvan72 said:
singlecoil said:
Not only that, but there has been a noticeable degree of arrogance in the pronouncements made by the legal lobby in support of their desire to be exempted from the cutbacks that have been affecting everybody else.
SC, that simply is not the argument that is being made. Please take the time to explore what the real issues in the debate are. Crude caricatures of the arguments on any issue take the debate nowhere.
Breadvan72 said:
singlecoil said:
Breadvan72 said:
singlecoil said:
Not only that, but there has been a noticeable degree of arrogance in the pronouncements made by the legal lobby in support of their desire to be exempted from the cutbacks that have been affecting everybody else.
SC, that simply is not the argument that is being made. Please take the time to explore what the real issues in the debate are. Crude caricatures of the arguments on any issue take the debate nowhere.
And you think I'm predictable?
Breadvan72 said:
People tend to over complicate things, and that goes for some lawyers and Judges as much as anyone. The rules themselves are fairly straightforward, but over time they become unduly embellished with nuance.
I add that I earn precisely zilch from legal aid, as I am lucky enough to work for mostly private sector clients, and sometimes for the government (which pays under a third of the private sector market rate). Despite having no financial stake in the legal aid reforms, I still care about the Government's misguided plans, as do most of the private sector lawyers that I know. We and our clients may suffer some bother if we have to wait longer to see a Judge because of all the litigant in person nonsense filling up the lists, and some of our clients may take their business to the US, Canada or elsewhere, but we will still be able to earn a living, unlike the legal aid lawyers, and we think it unfair that they are being threatened with ruin, and, more importantly, that their clients are being threatened with denial of access to justice, to fulfil an ideological purpose.
I looked at the list of what can and cannot be claimed and I see no issue at all. The list has grown over recent years and needs a good trimming back. As I dare to earn a living that is more than 2p I will never qualify for Legal Aid and feel zero need to pay for others.I add that I earn precisely zilch from legal aid, as I am lucky enough to work for mostly private sector clients, and sometimes for the government (which pays under a third of the private sector market rate). Despite having no financial stake in the legal aid reforms, I still care about the Government's misguided plans, as do most of the private sector lawyers that I know. We and our clients may suffer some bother if we have to wait longer to see a Judge because of all the litigant in person nonsense filling up the lists, and some of our clients may take their business to the US, Canada or elsewhere, but we will still be able to earn a living, unlike the legal aid lawyers, and we think it unfair that they are being threatened with ruin, and, more importantly, that their clients are being threatened with denial of access to justice, to fulfil an ideological purpose.
Edited by Breadvan72 on Wednesday 29th May 14:21
HungryHorace said:
I looked at the list of what can and cannot be claimed and I see no issue at all. The list has grown over recent years and needs a good trimming back. As I dare to earn a living that is more than 2p I will never qualify for Legal Aid and feel zero need to pay for others.
First off, I agree that the current state of affairs is not sustainable. A good trimming back is quite a nice way of summing up what is needed and I don't take issue with that.
HungryHorace said:
As I dare to earn a living that is more than 2p I will never qualify for Legal Aid and feel zero need to pay for others.
Plenty of those who end up in the criminal justice system are completely incapable of representing themselves. Large numbers of defendants have learning difficulties or significant mental illnesses. Most of them are skint.You just can't write off these unfortunates. They really need someone to provide them with advice (which is often that they should stop dicking about and plead guilty) and they really ought to have someone to speak up for them.
And even if they are of sound mind, is it really fair to deprive them of representation when they face the risk of prison?
Every country in the European Union recognises that individuals who face the loss of liberty should be afforded representation. And if necessary that should be at the expense of the state.
The issue is how far that right to represention should extend.
Should the legal aid fund pay for yet another solicitor to review an old case when the Court of Appeal has refused an appeal? Of course not. So that should go.
Should the legal aid fund pay for representation at prison disciplinary hearings when someone has been found with a mobile phone in his pad? Of course not. So that should go too.
Should the legal aid fund pay the current fixed fees for lengthy trials? Nope. Those fees are too high (though most fellow solicitors would disagree with me). So they should be chopped too.
The problem I have is not whether savings need to be made, but with the way the govt proposes to achieve them. I can't be arsed getting into a discussion about the problems with the proposed price competitive tendering. Suffice to say that it is fundamentally misconceived and will be a disaster.
And when I say it will be a disaster, I am not talking about the damage it does to my prospects of buying a Ferrari. I am talking about the human and financial costs across the whole criminal justice system.
You can achieve weight loss by amputating your legs. But, generally speaking, a diet is a more productive solution to the problem.
This government needs to put its bloody saw down and listen to sensible suggestions about how to tackle this problem.
Pat H said:
This government needs to put its bloody saw down and listen to sensible suggestions about how to tackle this problem.
When making an argument against a set of proposals, it's usually a good thing if the person arguing against them can, for the benefit of those who are not already committed, to summarise the reasons why the proposals have been made in the first place. Otherwise non-committed readers will be left to think that the people making the proposals, in this case the government, are doing so because they are nasty or stupid, or both. As most floating voters will assume that the government is neither of these things, suggesting that it is puts any argument made against the proposals in doubt.
escargot said:
Even if they made it clear that by pleading guilty you would get a suspended sentence, but by pleading not guilty, you were likely to get jail time (if the CPS win obv). Tough decision I'd argue.
Not if you are innocent. They idea that 'poor' people can get legal representation and the rest of us can't seems completely ridiculous to me.Jasandjules said:
XCP said:
Not if you are innocent. They idea that 'poor' people can get legal representation and the rest of us can't seems completely ridiculous to me.
And if you are innocent but convicted anyways? It does happen. Would you be able to pay for an Appeal? XCP said:
Like most people you mean?
In the Crown Court there's a gradiated scheme where you pay a proportion. Yet in magistrates, you seem to qualify in total, or you don't. In my case, that meant that I was reported for an offence when I was out of work and would have qualified. Then I got a job and didn't qualify at all. Then, I was summoned 18 days after the law changed, meaning I couldn't get 2/3rds of the £7k I spent defending myself successfully, back.10 Pence Short said:
In the Crown Court there's a gradiated scheme where you pay a proportion. Yet in magistrates, you seem to qualify in total, or you don't. In my case, that meant that I was reported for an offence when I was out of work and would have qualified. Then I got a job and didn't qualify at all. Then, I was summoned 18 days after the law changed, meaning I couldn't get 2/3rds of the £7k I spent defending myself successfully, back.
Which shows what a farce the system is. If you had never worked a day in your life you would have been better off.I agree. The system allowed someone to make a malicious allegation, the Police and CPS had an axe to grind against me (long, long story) and promoted the case through to summons. The whole thing collapsed (not before a botched trial) and the CPS eventually withdrew. If I'd stayed out of work, I'd have been better off!
singlecoil said:
I would suggest people not reading the second link as it's mostly (rather poor) arguments against the reforms.
As for the first link, well, he's a former judge, he would say that wouldn't he.
Judges are impartial. Barristers working in criminal law very often work both CPS and defence, swapping daily.As for the first link, well, he's a former judge, he would say that wouldn't he.
What lawyers don't want (whether they be judges, barristers or solicitors, on any side) is for people to lose access to justice or for the courts to jam up with litigants in person who do not understand the system.
I appreciate you find it hard to believe there are vocational lawyers in criminal practice, but at some point you ought to lose your cynicism and accept it's not all about money.
QCs, judges and lawyers could always have earned an awful lot more money working other areas of law if money was their motivator. Many if not most high street non-equity lawyers working crime earn similar or less than a Police Sergeant.
A couple of months ago I left the firm that I established 13 years ago, anticipating that the proposed reforms will result in a blood bath.
At the moment I am doing a bit of freelance work while I wait to see what happens.
Yesterday I spent the morning representing an unemployed lad who was charged with possession of an offensive weapon at a National Front rally. I pleaded him and weighed the case off. He got a suspended sentence.
Then I did a home visit for a chap with brain damage who the police want to speak to about an assault.
And at 6pm I went to the police station and dealt with a schizophrenic drug addict who had been out shoplifting. He was interviewed, charged and bailed to court.
I left home at 8am and got back at 8pm.
Total cost to the Legal Aid fund was £445 in fixed fees.
It was a pretty typical day. No one that I dealt with was in a position to pay privately. All of them were either in custody, at risk of immediate custody or completely incapable of representing themselves.
The overheads of a well run provincial criminal legal aid firm have historically been about 45% of turnover. My overheads as a freelancer are much lower. The overheads of a large firm in a large city centre can amount to 80% or more.
The govt suggests reducing the number of criminal legal aid firms by two thirds. If the surviving firms retain the newly redundant solicitors as freelancers, there is scope for a worthwhile cost saving, though at the price of closing over a thousand small to medium sized businesses, with all the collateral damage that comes from redundancy of support staff etc.
The challenge will then be whether enough infrastructure remains in place to service the more complicated Crown Court cases, where a depth of preparation is required and where secretarial and paralegal support is needed to do justice to the cases.
I have a couple of fundamental problems with the way the govt wants to implement its cost savings.
The first is the likely damage to the quality of representation. A cornerstone of the proposed reforms is to take away client choice and to allocate cases according to a cab rank principle.
This would enable the likes of G4S to enter the market. They need to be allocated the work, or they wouldn't get any. This is because most recidivists have their regular brief.
If you are any good, you build up a client base and a business. If you are crap, then you fail. Quality is regulated by the market, which is how it should be. Take away client choice and quality will definitely fall.
My second issue is that the problem is not the structure of the providers, but with the mechanism and scope of remuneration.
Why destroy a thousand firms by taking away their criminal legal aid contracts and then award the contracts to alternative business structures? Most existing firms are long established, they are already providing a quality service, they have quality controls and systems in place to provide a decent standard of work. They aren't the bloody problem.
So why rip them apart and hand their contracts to an organisation like G4S? Look what a hash they made of providing security at the Olympic games. And providing criminal defence services is a damn sight more challenging than that.
Savings do need to be made. So cap the fees for the big expensive cases. Impose a 20% reduction in police station and magistrates court fixed fees. Do away with the marginal benefit services including some prison law and reviews of dead cases.
Then let market forces do the rest.
Inefficient firms will leave the market place and the fittest will survive. The govt will have achieved the necessary savings without destroying the existing service providers.
One thing that really depresses me is watching the pool of experience and talent ebb away. Hard working and often brilliant lawyers are being lost to the criminal justice system as they slip into other legal fields, turn their backs on law to retrain or take early retirement.
And then there are the duffers like me, who have plenty of experience under their belts and ought to have another twenty years to give, but who are walking smartly backwards away from the approaching train crash.
These reforms will impose financial hardship on a lot of lawyers who are already pretty modestly paid. But no one gives a stuff about that. After all, our reputation as arrogant, self serving parasites is richly deserved. To see the profession squealing provides a lot of vicarious pleasure to many outside.
But the real tragedy will be the damage caused to the integrity of the criminal justice system. There will definitely be an increase in miscarriages of justice. I am not just saying this as a lever to protect my own financial interests. After all, I have already cashed in my chips.
Over the last couple of years the CPS has been hammered and the police are under relentless pressure from above. Fewer cases result in prosecution. This isn't because crime is falling. It is because reporting of offences is being massaged. And because no one is being charged unless the evidence is overwhelming.
The number of cases resulting in no further action have spiralled. Serious offences are dealt with by cautions. Those prosecuted face less serious charges, as the CPS struggles to keep cases out of the Crown Court. And the courts are under pressure not to impose custodial sentences.
So we are not talking just about people being wrongly imprisoned. There are plenty of dangerous villains out there who could and should be behind bars. Miscarriage of justice cuts both ways.
All this goes way beyond the proposed cuts in criminal legal aid. But by closing courts, laying off probation officers, closing law firms and making CPS prosecutors redundant, the govt is butchering the scope and capacity of the whole criminal justice system.
And so when the true crime rates become clear, and when society demands a return to the effective prosecution and punishment of offenders, there won't be the infrastructure, human resources or talent to cope.
And on that happy note, I think I shall go for a pint.
At the moment I am doing a bit of freelance work while I wait to see what happens.
Yesterday I spent the morning representing an unemployed lad who was charged with possession of an offensive weapon at a National Front rally. I pleaded him and weighed the case off. He got a suspended sentence.
Then I did a home visit for a chap with brain damage who the police want to speak to about an assault.
And at 6pm I went to the police station and dealt with a schizophrenic drug addict who had been out shoplifting. He was interviewed, charged and bailed to court.
I left home at 8am and got back at 8pm.
Total cost to the Legal Aid fund was £445 in fixed fees.
It was a pretty typical day. No one that I dealt with was in a position to pay privately. All of them were either in custody, at risk of immediate custody or completely incapable of representing themselves.
The overheads of a well run provincial criminal legal aid firm have historically been about 45% of turnover. My overheads as a freelancer are much lower. The overheads of a large firm in a large city centre can amount to 80% or more.
The govt suggests reducing the number of criminal legal aid firms by two thirds. If the surviving firms retain the newly redundant solicitors as freelancers, there is scope for a worthwhile cost saving, though at the price of closing over a thousand small to medium sized businesses, with all the collateral damage that comes from redundancy of support staff etc.
The challenge will then be whether enough infrastructure remains in place to service the more complicated Crown Court cases, where a depth of preparation is required and where secretarial and paralegal support is needed to do justice to the cases.
I have a couple of fundamental problems with the way the govt wants to implement its cost savings.
The first is the likely damage to the quality of representation. A cornerstone of the proposed reforms is to take away client choice and to allocate cases according to a cab rank principle.
This would enable the likes of G4S to enter the market. They need to be allocated the work, or they wouldn't get any. This is because most recidivists have their regular brief.
If you are any good, you build up a client base and a business. If you are crap, then you fail. Quality is regulated by the market, which is how it should be. Take away client choice and quality will definitely fall.
My second issue is that the problem is not the structure of the providers, but with the mechanism and scope of remuneration.
Why destroy a thousand firms by taking away their criminal legal aid contracts and then award the contracts to alternative business structures? Most existing firms are long established, they are already providing a quality service, they have quality controls and systems in place to provide a decent standard of work. They aren't the bloody problem.
So why rip them apart and hand their contracts to an organisation like G4S? Look what a hash they made of providing security at the Olympic games. And providing criminal defence services is a damn sight more challenging than that.
Savings do need to be made. So cap the fees for the big expensive cases. Impose a 20% reduction in police station and magistrates court fixed fees. Do away with the marginal benefit services including some prison law and reviews of dead cases.
Then let market forces do the rest.
Inefficient firms will leave the market place and the fittest will survive. The govt will have achieved the necessary savings without destroying the existing service providers.
One thing that really depresses me is watching the pool of experience and talent ebb away. Hard working and often brilliant lawyers are being lost to the criminal justice system as they slip into other legal fields, turn their backs on law to retrain or take early retirement.
And then there are the duffers like me, who have plenty of experience under their belts and ought to have another twenty years to give, but who are walking smartly backwards away from the approaching train crash.
These reforms will impose financial hardship on a lot of lawyers who are already pretty modestly paid. But no one gives a stuff about that. After all, our reputation as arrogant, self serving parasites is richly deserved. To see the profession squealing provides a lot of vicarious pleasure to many outside.
But the real tragedy will be the damage caused to the integrity of the criminal justice system. There will definitely be an increase in miscarriages of justice. I am not just saying this as a lever to protect my own financial interests. After all, I have already cashed in my chips.
Over the last couple of years the CPS has been hammered and the police are under relentless pressure from above. Fewer cases result in prosecution. This isn't because crime is falling. It is because reporting of offences is being massaged. And because no one is being charged unless the evidence is overwhelming.
The number of cases resulting in no further action have spiralled. Serious offences are dealt with by cautions. Those prosecuted face less serious charges, as the CPS struggles to keep cases out of the Crown Court. And the courts are under pressure not to impose custodial sentences.
So we are not talking just about people being wrongly imprisoned. There are plenty of dangerous villains out there who could and should be behind bars. Miscarriage of justice cuts both ways.
All this goes way beyond the proposed cuts in criminal legal aid. But by closing courts, laying off probation officers, closing law firms and making CPS prosecutors redundant, the govt is butchering the scope and capacity of the whole criminal justice system.
And so when the true crime rates become clear, and when society demands a return to the effective prosecution and punishment of offenders, there won't be the infrastructure, human resources or talent to cope.
And on that happy note, I think I shall go for a pint.
Pat H said:
Said a lot of good stuff
I understand your concern, but are they not the same as say a doctor in a hospital seeing his budget cut or schools having to manage on a reduced budget ?, we need to change and spend less money that we do not have, other countries spend a lot less and manage, I agree its not ideal but we have no choice in my opinion. Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff