Law Society hits back at critics
Law Society chief executive, Des Hudson, published an open letter last month to answer complaints about the society’s stance on the government’s proposals for criminal legal aid.
The letter, published on the Law Society’s website, argues that the society could have adopted a stance of all-out opposition to the government’s proposals, including supporting direct action, which might have made the society more popular with its members; however, it took the view that by engaging with the government, this ‘could lead to a better outcome for members’. Des Hudson reiterated his position that the Law Society did not support the cuts to fees, and urged solicitors to contact their MPs to alert them to the impact the cuts would have on their firms.
Chief among the critics of the Law Society was Nigel Lithman QC, chairperson of the Criminal Bar Association (CBA). At a highly charged meeting of the London Criminal Courts Solicitors’ Association (LCCSA), which took place in Camden Town Hall in central London in October, Nigel Lithman was scathing in his criticism of Des Hudson and the deal reached with the Ministry of Justice (MoJ) over criminal legal aid.
In his speech to the meeting, which was attended by around 400 barristers and solicitors, Des Hudson outlined what he described as ‘three crucial facts’ which meant that the agreement with the government, which dropped plans for competitive tendering and allowed own client work to continue, was the ‘least bad deal that could have been made’. First, the Big Firms Group had put in a proposal to the MoJ which meant that the government had an alternative ‘option on the shelf which could be put in place tomorrow’. His second fact was that there was no ‘parliamentary support to ring-fence the criminal legal aid budget’. The third fact was that the meeting ‘did not represent the totality of solicitors’ views on the issue, as there are firms that say: “We can do this”.’ Throughout his speech and in his replies to questions, Des Hudson made it clear that the Law Society did not agree to the rate cuts. He accepted, in response to questions from the audience, that it was not possible in his view to do a decent job for the rates on offer.
LAG understands that the CBA remains determined not to accept the fee cuts, and is contemplating not signing any new contracts for very high cost cases (VHCCs) which include any reduction in rates. The issue is likely to come to a head this month as the CBA says that the new criminal contracts are due to be issued and barristers may well refuse to sign them if they include a cut in fees. This could mean that they would withdraw from representing in cases currently before the courts – a move which could paralyse the criminal justice system.