Two high profile solicitors in the criminal legal aid Big Firms Group (BFG) have spoken out about the proposed legal aid cuts in an article on the Times website today. It’s clear from their comments that, while they are critical of the government’s plans to cut fees, they support the Law Society’s (LS) stance of trying to negotiate with the Ministry of Justice (MoJ). This is in contrast to the outright opposition favoured by many, including the supporters of the no confidence motion against the Law Society leadership, (see blog from Monday 18th Nov).

 

 

Franklin Sinclair, senior partner at Tuckers a large criminal defence firm with offices around the country, said in the article that he was not in favour of the no-confidence vote and that the Law Society Chief Executive, Des Hudson, was “a very astute leader” with a difficult job. Sinclair though criticised the LS for trying to be “all things to all men” observing that, “when you do that you do not please everybody.” He also stated that rather than the LS negotiating for him, he’d prefer to deal directly with the MoJ through the BFG.

 

 

The BFG, which consists of just 37 firms each with a turnover from legal aid of over £1.5m, favour a radical reduction in the number of criminal defence firms. This is made clear in the Times piece.  The smaller firms are accused by Anthony Edwards, senior partner at TV Edwards, of being “headstrong with their heads in the sand,” over the Government’s intention to make cuts.  Edwards believes that the “market should consolidate down to 200 firms,” and that the government should be told that to make cuts “they must consolidate the market.”

 

 

Edwards and Sinclair do not agree with the proposed cut in fees and argue that a good case could be made to persuade the government to impose a lesser reduction. Sinclair points out that through falling crime rates and the reduced fee rates already in place, “they are already well on the way to achieving the target.” He argues that firms need to merge or, work in consortia and “throw off the shackles of the duty solicitor scheme,” which he believes has led to “huge salary inflation” as firms are forced to employ accredited solicitors to pick-up work.

 

 

The intervention of Edwards and Sinclair in the debate over the government’s proposals for criminal legal aid seems to be timed to add support to the embattled leadership of the Law Society. However, this should not detract from their message. They have consistently argued over the last eight years that a combination of falling crime rates, reducing volumes of work caused by summary justice procedures and the need to reform the duty solicitor scheme, means that the numbers of firms in the market is unsustainable.  

 

 

LAG is aware that under the last government they lobbied hard for a re-shaping of the criminal defence market. Their remarks reported today are a clear warning to criminal defence firms that they are continuing to offer an alternative vision of a service which at its core has a much reduced number of firms.  We’d suggest that all those opposed to the potentially devastating cut in fees need to put aside their differences and unite to put pressure on the government. The best result we can expect is a compromise which will still mean the loss of some firms- though no-where near the level which the BFG would like to see.