Follow the money

Like in good comedy, timing is everything in politics. The minister responsible for legal aid, Jonathan Djanogly, released the figures for the highest paid legal aid solicitor firms and barristers yesterday. Call us cynical, but this is a sure sign that the delayed bill containing the legal aid cuts is to follow next week.

Publicising the top earners figures as a means of justifying the planned legal aid cuts would be hypocritical in the extreme - not that this is likely to stop some, particularly as the political pressure over the cuts mounts. What should be remembered is that nearly £300m of the total cuts of £350m likely to be announced next week have little bearing on the high-earning people on this list. These cuts instead fall disproportionately on the lower end of civil legal aid work, undertaken by solicitors and not for profit organisations earning far less than the elite few reflected in these figures.

The Bar usually comes in for criticism when these sorts of figures are released as individuals earning high amounts of public money are an easy target for sections of the press. What partners in solicitors firms earn from legal aid is less transparent. Fortunately, there are no barristers earning over one million pounds topping the list to hang a story on. LAG believes this is in large part due to the changes to Very High Cost Cases (VHCC) fees made by the last government. Barristers and solicitor advocates have also taken a 12.5 per cent reduction in Crown Court fees over the last two years.

There remains, though, a striking differential between the amounts being earned by the top criminal barristers as opposed to civil barristers. The lowest earning criminal barrister in the list would come near the top of the civil earnings list. Across all levels of fee income, civil law legal aid barristers generally earn much less than their criminal counterparts. This is a reflection of the number of criminal VHCC and, it has to be said, the more generous fee structure for criminal cases. Only two women feature in the list of top criminal barristers, as opposed to six in the civil list - a sure sign perhaps that most of the money is in criminal work?

The Law Society has called for a cap of a quarter of a million pounds to be imposed on individual earnings from the legal aid fund. LAG doubts that this is something which could be easily implemented. To be even-handed it would be difficult to apply to partners in solicitors firms with a mix of private and legal aid income. Also, as Jonathan Djanogly correctly points out in the letter in which he released the figures, the earnings for barristers are not necessarily calculated over a calendar year, and can include fees for junior counsel, as well as other overheads.

LAG accepts that excellence in advocacy carries a cost which has to be met to ensure equality before the law. However, we do not believe the differential between civil and criminal fees can be justified. If the policy choice boils down to higher fees at the top end of criminal work, against access to justice for the public coping with everyday civil legal problems, criminal barristers and solicitor advocates should be prepared to take a hit in income.

Read the letter and full list of figures here: http://www.lag.org.uk/Templates/Internal.asp?NodeID=88856

Picture: Ministry of Justice, legal aid minister Jonathan Djanogly

Bar moves with the times

Historic reforms on the regulation of barristers were approved by the Bar Standards Board (BSB) last week. In response to mounting pressure the BSB (see previous blog 'Bar behind the times') has agreed that barristers should be allowed to establish partnerships with solicitors and with other barristers. The rule change ends 800 years of tradition.

Barristers were in danger of losing out to solicitors as without the change they would not have been permitted to join the new legal disciplinary practices (LDPs). LDPs allow legal and other professionals to form partnerships and permit 25 per cent ownership by non-lawyers. In LAG’s view it makes sense that barristers can now bring their advocacy expertise to such partnerships as this will enhance the service to clients and hopefully reduce costs.

LAG believes that some chambers might move to form LDPs or other legal entities to enable them to compete for blocks of work from the Legal Services Commission and other organisations. The rule changes also alter the role of self-employed barristers as they will now be able to take witness statements, correspond with clients and provide advice in police stations (although this would rule them out of representing the client in court).

There will inevitably be some blurring of the distinction between solicitors and barristers with these rule changes. They could be a major stepping stone on the road to a unified legal profession. The Bar will only survive by maintaining its reputation for providing independent specialist advocacy services.

Family fees announced

The Legal Services Commission (LSC) has today announced the fees for family cases. These had been subject to intense negotiations with representatives from legal aid providers. If publication of the fees had been delayed the whole bid round process for civil legal aid might have been put in jeopardy. But the fees could still be subject to a legal challenge.

Family cases take up over half of all expenditure on civil legal aid. It would have been difficult for firms to bid for contracts in the other areas of civil law without knowing the fees for family work. Hourly rates for advocacy will be abolished under the scheme and a system of standard fees will be introduced.

Barristers stand to lose out on the fees as while the government claims that the overall budget for family cases will stay the same the amounts paid to barristers will go down. The intention, the government says, is to pay the same to solicitors and barristers for the work. LAG understands that there is much disagreement over the data on which the new fees are based and that the Bar had wanted further time for analysis of this.

Fees for private law family work (mainly divorce and custody matters) have been subject to bitter wrangling behind the scenes and some practitioners are questioning the viability of the proposed fees. The government will wait with bated breath to see if the Bar will move to bring a judicial review to challenge the scheme and risk derailing the civil contract bid rounds.