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

Hogan Lovells—Lisa Quelch

Hogan Lovells—Lisa Quelch

Partner hire strengthens global infrastructure and energy financing practice

Sherrards—Jan Kunstyr

Sherrards—Jan Kunstyr

Legal director bolsters international expertise in dispute resolution team

Muckle LLP—Stacey Brown

Muckle LLP—Stacey Brown

Corporate governance and company law specialist joins the team

NEWS

NOTICE UNDER THE TRUSTEE ACT 1925

HERBERT SMITH STAFF PENSION SCHEME (THE “SCHEME”)

NOTICE TO CREDITORS AND BENEFICIARIES UNDER SECTION 27 OF THE TRUSTEE ACT 1925
Law firm HFW is offering clients lawyers on call for dawn raids, sanctions issues and other regulatory emergencies
From gender-critical speech to notice periods and incapability dismissals, employment law continues to turn on fine distinctions. In his latest employment law brief for NLJ, Ian Smith of Norwich Law School reviews a cluster of recent decisions, led by Bailey v Stonewall, where the Court of Appeal clarified the limits of third-party liability under the Equality Act
Non-molestation orders are meant to be the frontline defence against domestic abuse, yet their enforcement often falls short. Writing in NLJ this week, Jeni Kavanagh, Jessica Mortimer and Oliver Kavanagh analyse why the criminalisation of breach has failed to deliver consistent protection
Assisted dying remains one of the most fraught fault lines in English law, where compassion and criminal liability sit uncomfortably close. Writing in NLJ this week, Julie Gowland and Barny Croft of Birketts examine how acts motivated by care—booking travel, completing paperwork, or offering emotional support—can still fall within the wide reach of the Suicide Act 1961
back-to-top-scroll