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

Jurit LLP—Caroline Williams

Jurit LLP—Caroline Williams

Private wealth and tax team welcomes cross-border specialist as consultant

Freeths—Michelle Kirkland Elias

Freeths—Michelle Kirkland Elias

International hospitality and leisure specialist joins corporate team as partner

Flint Bishop—Deborah Niven

Flint Bishop—Deborah Niven

Firm appoints head of intellectual property to drive northern growth

NEWS
Talk of a reserved ‘Welsh seat’ on the Supreme Court is misplaced. In NLJ this week, Professor Graham Zellick KC explains that the Constitutional Reform Act treats ‘England and Wales’ as one jurisdiction, with no statutory Welsh slot
The government’s plan to curb jury trials has sparked ‘jury furore’. Writing in NLJ this week, David Locke, partner at Hill Dickinson, says the rationale is ‘grossly inadequate’
A year after the $1.5bn Bybit heist, crypto fraud is booming—but so is recovery. Writing in NLJ this week, Neil Holloway, founder and CEO of M2 Recovery, warns that scams hit at least $14bn in 2025, fuelled by ‘pig butchering’ cons and AI deepfakes
After Woodcock confirmed no general duty to warn, debate turns to the criminal law. Writing in NLJ this week, Charles Davey of The Barrister Group urges revival of misprision or a modern equivalent
Family courts are tightening control of expert evidence. Writing in NLJ this week, Dr Chris Pamplin says there is ‘no automatic right’ to call experts; attendance must be ‘necessary in the interests of justice’ under FPR Pt 25
back-to-top-scroll