Skip to main content

Legal Aid silliness

Just following up on my last post where I mentioned how complex legal aid is; I have just billed a trial.  One of the solicitors in the office conducted the litigation while I acted as advocate - the barrister if you like.  The trial lasted for three days.  Neither of us are paid anything for the first two days of the trial, this is included in the basic fee.  However, for day 3 I was paid a pretty reasonable £451 for attending, conducting a trial, questioning witnesses, making a speech to the jury etc etc.  However, the litigator received an extra payment of £771.17 for that day (I know as I'm preparing his bill for him).  For that extra payment he did not attend court, although I think I spoke to him on the telephone. 



Because of the way the system works you have to claim everything.  If you don't then when your files are audited there will be a discrepancy between your claim and the 'correct' fee, this will count against you and you will lose your status as a Category 1 firm - this is important as a couple of years ago the LSC refused to renew the contracts of all Cat 3 firms, so they went out of business.

This happens because the LSC insist on paying solicitors based purely on the number of pages and the length of trial irrespective of what work needs to be done.  They call this swings and roundabouts because sometimes you do well, other times you lose out.  What it really does is removes any incentive to do good quality work and creates a climate where solicitors might as well employ as many untrained paralegals as possible to avoid paying the extra premiums demanded by qualified and experienced solicitors.  Just remember if you're ever accused of a crime you didn't commit (or maybe one you did) then these are the people who could be fighting for you.

If the Government really want to reduce the cost of legal aid then they would do well to look at the complex way it is organised.  I'm not aware of any situation where the more complicated something was the cheaper it became and the same is true of legal aid.  If it's complicated then there will be more mistakes.  If there's more mistakes then you need more staff and better computers to catch them.

Comments

  1. With all respect, I'm not quite sure you have analysed that right.

    Sure the litigator got paid £771, but it wasn't for the third day of the trial, it was for preparing and litigating a three-day trial.

    That still might not be fair and reasonable, but it is far from being the rip-off that you make it appear to be! Just because the litigator's job is more front-loaded and you pull the reins at the end does't make it unfair in itself.

    ReplyDelete
  2. That is my point, although maybe not expressed as well as it should have been. There was no more work done by the litigator for this trial because it went into three days rather than two. Because the LSC like to rely on the swings and roundabouts approach to legal aid funding they waste a lot of money. Some cases that last three days genuinely deserve more money for the litigator, whereas some don't. Under the ex post facto system that we used to use the lawyers were renumerated for the work they did rather than on this rather bizarre mess we have now.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Yep, I thought that was what you were getting at - it's just you came across a bit sniffy about it (too much of the 'barrister' maybe!).

    You're right, of course, that it is all too damn complicated, and while length of trial might be a sane rule-of-thumb measure for an advocate it is a rotten one for a litigator.

    ReplyDelete

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Ched Evans

Before I begin, I will say that at around 4,500 words this is probably the longest blog I’ve ever posted but I think it’s all necessary to set the scene for this case and explain the background that has been largely ignored or airbrushed in the press. Despite its length, I have not attempted to include every little detail of either fact or law but have done my best to provide a balanced picture of the Ched Evans case, what happened and why the courts reached the decisions they did. There has been so much written about the Ched Evans case over the past weekend, much of it based on a very shaky grasp of the facts and law, that I decided I would read up about the case and weigh in (hopefully on a slightly firmer footing than most of the articles I’ve read so far).

Broadly speaking there seem to be three groups who have opinions on the case:
1.Sexual violence groups (including people describing themselves as “radical feminists”) who appear to take the view that the case is awful, the Court o…

How do the police decide whether to charge a suspect?

A question I’m often asked by clients (and in a roundabout way by people arriving at this blog using searches that ask the question in a variety of ways), is “how do the police decide whether to charge or take no further action (NFA)?”
What are the options?
Let’s have a quick think about what options are available to the police at the end of an investigation.
First, they can charge or report you for summons to attend court.  Charging means that you are given police bail and are required to attend court in person.  A summons is an order from the court for you to attend or for you to send a solicitor on your behalf.  In many cases where a person is summonsed, the court will allow you the option of entering a plea by post.
Second, you may be given a caution.  These can be a simple caution, which on the face of it is a warning not to be naughty in future, or it can be a conditional caution.  Conditions could include a requirement to pay for the cost of damage or compensation, etc.  Either…

Bid to prevent defendants knowing who accuses them of a crime

When I read The Trial by Kafka and Nineteen Eighty-Four by Orwell, I took them as warnings of how a bad justice system wrecks lives of those caught up in it. Sadly, some Members of Parliament and the House of Lords seem to view the books more as a guide to how they would like our Criminal Justice System to run. Today, I read of plans to hide the names of accusers and witnesses from defendants in a large number of cases. Victims of sexual offences, such as rape, have had the right to lifelong anonymity for many years now. This means that it is a criminal offence to publish information that will lead to a complainant being identified. A Bill currently being considered by Parliament would extend that anonymity to bar defendants and their lawyers knowing the name of the person accusing them. This would apply not only in sexual offences, as has been reported in the press, but also in violent offences.
The anonymity currently offered to victims of sexual offences is not total, the complainant…