The deadline for responses to the UK government consultation paper on England & Wales legal aid cuts “Transforming Legal Aid: delivering a more credible and efficient system” closed on 4 June. The paper, which proposes cutting £220 million from England & Wales' legal aid budget, was met with fierce criticism from a wide variety of stakeholders in the legal system. Notable opponents to the proposed cuts include the Bar Council, the Law Society, a wide range of barristers' chambers and solicitors’ firms, 145 Government Counsel and the London Irish Lawyers Association. Click here to view a list of responses to the consultation paper.
The most controversial aspects of the proposed changes include price competitive tendering – which would see the legal aid market opened to a wide range of private businesses. These tenders would be capped at 17.5% below the rates paid in 2012/2013. Concerns have been expressed that the change will drive many specialised high street law firms out of business, while incentivising large corporations to provide low cost legal service. Retail giant Tesco and private security company G4S have both expressed interest in bidding for contracts.
Price competitive tendering will mean that legal aid clients will no longer be able to choose their own solicitor. UK Justice Secretary Chris Grayling has said to The Guardian, “I don’t believe that most people who find themselves in our criminal justice system are great connoisseurs of legal skills. We know the people in our prisons and who come into our courts often come from the most difficult and challenged backgrounds.” In response, a number practitioners have expressed concern that the removal of client choice will undermine the relationship of trust between often vulnerable defendants and their solicitors, leading to lower levels of guilty pleas. Lucy Scott-Montcrieff, President of the Law Society of England and Wales, has said, “The right of clients to choose is one of the main drivers of quality in the system, as well as helping it to run more cheaply and efficiently. For instance, lawyers who know their clients do not need to take a full history each time. A client is more likely to trust a lawyer if they have chosen them and know they could choose someone else...”
Other proposals include the payment of a flat-fee for criminal cases, regardless of whether or not the client pleads guilty. Since not-guilty pleas are time-consuming and expensive, the proposal creates a financial incentive for solicitors to encourage their clients to plead guilty.
The Law Society of England and Wales stated that the proposals are so “unworkable and damaging that they are likely to push the justice system beyond breaking point to a devastating collapse.”