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

Unlikely bedfellows

At an event held at the House of Lords yesterday (14 June) the Haldane Society of Socialist Lawyers and the Young Legal Aid Lawyers revealed the findings of their commission of inquiry into legal aid.

The commission comprised the former Liberal Democrat MP Dr Evan Harris, Diana Holland, the assistant general secretary of the trade union Unite and the Reverend Professor Nicholas Sagovsky, a former sub-dean at Westminster Abbey. This independent panel gathered evidence on both sides of the argument about the future of legal aid and heard testimony from former legal aid clients. These included Mrs Whitehouse who had been threatened with eviction by her landlord after being a tenant in her flat for nearly 50 years.

'What happened to my husband and I could happen to anyone. You can lose your home especially if you are renting, but also if you are buying.' She lost her case at the first court hearing and was concerned about the amount of public money her case was costing in legal aid, but was successful in the Court of Appeal. 'What was most important to me was that costs were awarded against the landlord which meant all the public money was paid back.'

An unlikely attendee at the event, which was graced by a good few left-leaning lawyers and was hosted by the shadow legal aid minister, Lord Bach, was the former Conservative Secretary of State for Social Security, Lord Newton. He made the point that three sets of interconnected proposals, the Welfare Reform Bill, the Localism Bill (especially with regard to its provisions on tenure) and the legal aid reforms, will have a major impact on advice providers and the people they serve. He said: 'I am not satisfied that what is proposed is protecting vulnerable people' and, as the former chairman of the Administrative Justice and Tribunals Council , he was concerned about 'the costs of some processes if people do not have help and advice. Some people going to tribunals need to know what points to argue'.

The findings of the commission included:

'Legal aid is vital in protecting the righs of vulnerable people ... many of those who receive legal aid are among the most vulnerable in society. They include the elderly, the disabled, the abused, children and the mentally ill. They each have legal rights which they would not have been able to enforce without legal aid.'

'Legal aid is vital in upholding the rule of law ... There can be no semblance of equality before the law when those who cannot afford to pay a lawyer privately go unrepresented or receive a worse kind of representation that those who can.'

'Legal aid is essential to holding the state to account ... It would be wrong in principle for the state to tolerate bad decision-making while at the same time removing the ability of ordinary people to hold those bodies to account for their mistakes by reducing legal aid.'

'Cutting legal aid is a false economy ... When coupled with the human cost to the vulnerable and socially excluded of reducing legal aid, the panel finds these increased economic costs are unacceptable.'

In closing the launch event, Lord Bach said that he understood the government's response to the consultation on the legal aid changes would be published within the week and 'despite over 90 per cent of those who responded to the consultation disagreeing with the government’s plans, in general it will go ahead with the scope cuts. This should not be seen as just a legal problem for lawyers. Legal aid cuts are an issue for everyone as it is about fairness and morality'.

View pictures from the event by Ripon Ray:http://www.flickr.com/photos/haldanesociety/sets/72157626971471916/show/

Image: LAG

Will the Treasury pay?

After pressure from some sections of the media and the Conservative party, the government has backed down on its plans for sentencing reform. LAG supported the reforms, which included a 50 per cent discount for early guilty pleas, and the government’s u-turn is a big disappointment to the cause for penal reform. The government's change of heart means the bill including the legal aid reforms will not be published today as had been intended, but will be delayed until next week or later. It also leaves the Ministry of Justice's (MoJ's) budget plans in disarray as a further £100m will need to be found to meet the 25 per cent cuts target imposed on it.

Officials at the Legal Services Commission have been saying for some weeks that more money might have to be found from legal aid. LAG believes that the planned cuts of £350m will be difficult to realise. We believe there is considerable disquiet in government about the impact of the cuts on social welfare law, especially on the Citizens Advice Bureaux service and the rest of the not for profit sector. The cuts are clearly in danger of undermining the 'Big Society' policy agenda and leaves the government open to the charge that they disproportionately impact on the very poorest and most vulnerable. In family legal aid, where the bulk of the cuts will fall, LAG questions whether in principle the cuts can be justified but also if they can be delivered in practice.

Ministers have already indicated that a change in the definition of domestic violence is almost certain to be included in the bill and this is welcome, but it means many more women will be eligible for legal aid, and this will increase costs. Also, the fact remains that relationships will continue to end with continuing legal ramifications, especially over child custody, which will have to be met. Cutting off legal aid just means more litigants in person increasing costs in the family courts.

The MoJ might look for cuts in criminal legal aid to meet the shortfall. However, they have limited options. They could cut rates of pay, but these were cut under the last government. Crown Court fees have been reduced by 13.5 per cent over the past two years following one of Labour’s last big decisions on legal aid policy. Rates on police station and magistrates' court work could be looked at again, but these have already been cut to the bone. Competitive tendering for the work might produce some savings, but this will take time to implement. High cost cases could be examined again, but this would be vulnerable to protest action by the Bar.

The government is happy to publish the earnings figures for the top end of the Bar (due out this week as LAG understands) as a stick used to beat legal aid lawyers. However, the political will to reduce such fees rapidly diminishes when the Bar threatens to boycott (or rather not be available for!) such work (as happened under the last government). The red top press will happily run fat cat lawyer stories to traduce legal aid, but would give much greater prominence to stories of trials of dangerous criminals collapsing due to the lack of qualified defence counsel.

In LAG’s view, the MoJ has only two options. It could cobble together another £100m in legal aid cuts, which officials will know are not deliverable, or persuade the Treasury to increase the budget by £100m. Like it or not, the backsliding on sentencing reform policy is a decision which has been taken by the Prime Minister, backed by the cabinet. Such fundamental shifts of policy need resourcing and it is the Treasury which should find the cash. If it does not, it will be unlikely that the Civil Justice, Sentencing Reform and Legal Aid Bill will make it into the legislative timetable this year. Not something LAG and the legal aid lobby would shed any tears over, but a delay which would create a considerable headache for the government.

Image: LAG

The impact of legal aid cuts

To coincide with the Justice for All day of action last week, Legal Action Group has published figures which show that over 50,000 Londoners will lose out on advice on common legal problems if the government goes ahead with its plans to cut civil legal aid.

Currently, 78,480 Londoners with problems in housing, benefits, employment, debt and education receive advice paid for by legal aid. According to the government’s own figures, if the cuts planned in the legal aid bill (due to be published next week) go ahead, nearly 52,000 Londoners will no longer get help. LAG calculates that advice providers in London, mainly Citizens Advice Bureaux, Law Centres and other not for profit organisations, along with some solicitors firms, will be cut by just under £10m, forcing many to either close their doors for good or cut back drastically on their services to the public.

LAG’s director Steve Hynes, speaking at a rally outside the Supreme Court in London on Friday, said, 'It is pointless for parliament to pass laws if people are denied the means to enforce them. The government needs to think again about its plans for civil legal aid or thousands of ordinary people will be denied justice.'

Overall LAG has estimated that more than 650,000 people will lose out on access to civil legal aid services if the government implements its plans for legal aid. LAG believes these cuts will lead to a rights deficit between what the law says people are entitled to and access to the advice and expert help often needed to enforce their legal rights. A full report on the figures is available on LAG's website. This also includes the details of the number of social welfare law cases for each area of the country and how to calculate the services which will be lost.

Image: LAG: Protesters outside the Supreme Court. More pictures are available at: http://www.flickr.com/photos/45928311@N08/sets/72157626772756703/.

Day of action

A day of action against the cuts in legal aid and advice services has been called for this Friday (3 June) by Justice for All. Marches and other events have been planned across the country by campaigners opposed to the government's proposed cuts in legal aid, which LAG estimates will leave over 650,000 people a year without advice. Justice for All also wants to highlight the impact of cuts in local government support for advice services.

In Birmingham, an area which will be badly hit by both the legal aid cuts and reductions in grants to advice agencies from the local council, a march has been organised which will leave the law courts on Corporation Street at 12 noon. Other marches and rallies will take place in Sheffield, Eastbourne, Coventry and London. High street stalls are planned in some areas such as Liverpool and Tunbridge Wells. Many Justice for All supporters are holding meetings with their local MPs to brief them on the impact of the cuts.

A bill containing the government's proposals for legal aid is expected to be published next week. The government is proposing to remove large areas of work currently covered by the legal aid scheme such as employment, divorce, benefits and education law. Most of the proposed cuts will fall on civil legal aid and according to the government's own impact assessment it will be women, people with disabilities, as well as black and minority ethnic groups which will be most badly hit.

Details of the events taking place on Friday are available on the Justice for All website. LAG would urge anyone concerned about access to justice to support one of the events. We would also ask you to contact your MP to request that s/he does not support the bill when it is before parliament unless the cuts to the scope of legal aid have been removed.

LAG is a member of the Justice for All steering group.

Justice for All meeting in the House of Lords

Members of the House of Lords attended a meeting yesterday organised by Justice for All on the future of civil legal aid. The meeting was hosted by Baroness D’Souza, Lord Newton, Lord Bach and Lord Phillips.

Welcoming members of the House of Lords and Justice for All to the meeting, Lord Bach, the former legal aid minister, stressed that the event was not a party political one. He said, 'I fear if the government’s proposals on legal aid become a reality it will be the very poor who will lose out most.' Lord Newton, the former Secretary of State for Social Security under Conservative Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher, spoke of his 'anxiety' about the proposed reforms and stressed the need for Lords to be 'kept very well informed about them'. Lord Phillips, a Liberal Democrat peer said, 'With 10-1,300 new statute laws a year, it is organised hypocrisy if the government does not give people the means to access these laws.' Baroness D’Souza, a crossbench peer, stressed that it is 'important to organise' the effort to influence the legislation when it reaches the Lords.

After the initial speeches from the hosts, the meeting heard contributions from practitioners, organisations and clients concerned about the government’s proposals for civil legal aid. Laura Janes from Young Legal Aid Lawyers spoke about her work at the Howard League for Penal Reform, 'The children in prison I see usually have a history of years and years of unmet legal needs, which if they had been met would have most likely meant they would not have ended up in prison.' Many speakers stressed the importance of initial advice on problems to prevent them escalating. James Sandbach from Citizens Advice emphasised that it was through legal aid that Citizens Advice Bureaux provide specialist advice as 'sometimes those services provided by volunteers can only go so far'.

A speaker from the Women’s Institute, which is a member of Justice for All, talked about how the legal aid system helped her to escape a violent husband. She said that without legal aid she would have most likely remained in the abusive relationship afraid to bring divorce proceedings because her husband was 'a wealthy man'. A former client from the housing charity Shelter spoke of the need to be able to talk to someone face to face as many people facing multiple problems like her 'often do not have the confidence to simply pick up the phone for advice'.

Lucy Scott-Moncrieff from the Law Society said, 'We have come up with a package of cuts, including cutting fees, but not cutting scope, as we do have an alternative to the government’s proposals.' Steve Hynes from LAG said that he believed the bill to include provisions on legal aid is likely to receive its first reading in the House of Commons next month and that LAG would hope that, unless the bill was amended in the Commons, the Lords would take the opportunity to support amendments which provided 'alternatives to cuts in scope as these would hit the poorest and most vulnerable hardest'.

Gail Emerson from Citizens Advice closed the formal part of the meeting by outlining Justice for All's plans for the day of action on 3 June. She said that the day had been planned for the parliamentary Whitsun recess 'so that Justice for All members can see their MPs locally' and to 'highlight the impact of the proposed cuts at a local level'.

Image: Lord Phillips, a founder member and patron of LAG

LAG calls for a draft legal aid bill

LAG and the Law Society have today written a joint letter to the Secretary of State for Justice Kenneth Clarke calling on the government to publish its proposals for the reform of legal aid as a draft bill to be scrutinised by a special joint committee of the House of Commons and the House of Lords.

Draft bills provide an opportunity for the public and special interest groups to give evidence on the impact of the proposals in them. In the letter to Kenneth Clarke, LAG and the Law Society point out that the government has received over 5,000 submissions on its proposals for legal aid and that the Justice Committee in its recent report argued that the proposals needed 'substantial further refinement'. LAG has calculated that the proposed cuts of £49m in social welfare law alone will cost the government £286.2m in extra spending on other public services.

The letter goes on to say: 'We also share the Justice Select Committee’s concerns over the definition of domestic violence. It both acts as a perverse incentive to make false claims and prevents women who are victims, but do not wish to pursue a complaint in the courts, from receiving legal aid for assistance with the legal issues surrounding a relationship breakdown.'

LAG and the Law Society are also concerned over the government's proposals on civil litigation. They argue in the letter that the government's plans to change the rules on paying for damages cases are 'unjust' and call for more research on the effects of the proposed changes.

LAG believes that what the government is proposing for legal aid will have a profound impact on the ability of many ordinary people to obtain legal advice and representation. Our recent research shows that 150,000 more people than the government's original estimate of 500,000, will miss out on being able to get help with housing, employment and other common civil legal problems. We believe a draft bill would give an opportunity for a proper consultation to take place on the plans for legal aid, as without this tens of thousands of people will be denied access to justice.

A copy of the full text of the letter is available at: http://www.lag.org.uk/Templates/Internal.asp?NodeID=88856.

Image: Ministry of Justice