Skip to main content

Profit margins and committal fees

I'm making a new years resolution to blog more... so it's a bit late in the year for new year resolutions?  Well, sue me.  Er... hang on I know a few lawyers read this so lets not do any suing just yet.

Last year the Legal Services Commission did NOT abolish committal fees - these were paid to solicitors for work done in a magistrates court on cases that were later committed for trial to the Crown Court.  I say they didn't abolish these fees because, I did read a slightly pedantic letter from some arse at the LSC that pointed out that the fee still existed but had simply been set to £0.

It was widely predicted at the time that this would lead to hordes of unrepresented defendants at the magistrates court.  Personally, I saw this coming a long time back and took steps to ensure that my clients would always be represented through deals with Chambers etc.  I do not know personally whether the changes have led to the levels of unrepresented defendants that were predicted; but what I do know is that since this change came in every trip to court takes three times as long.  I popped to Thames Mags for a quick first appearance last week.  I told the list caller I was ready at about 9.55am only to be informed that there were 10 unrep'd defendants ahead of me in the queue!  So, maybe there is some truth in the claim that abolishing committal fees (sorry reducing the payment to £0) will cause delays.  Certainly, the Law Society things so and they have taken the LSC to court to argue it out before a judge.

This is the latest in a very long line of legal aid cuts.

I spoke to a former colleague recently who confided in me that he had always assured clients that they would receive the same high quality service whether they paid privately or took legal aid.  I'd always agreed with that point.  But, he is now at the point where he says his firm simply cannot provide the same level of service to their legally aided clients as they can to their private paying clients.  I hadn't spent a huge amount of time thinking about it, but he's right.  It is becoming increasingly difficult for firms to manage an ever decreasing income from legal aid work, which means that quality will fall.  Ultimately, this is bad for victims as much as it is for defendants.  Let me put this very simply.  If your loved one is killed do you want somebody in prison or do you want the killer in prison?  A strong defence means that you can be certain that the right person is behind bars.  A poor defence may well find you facing the prospect in 10+ years time of the person who was convicted being revealed to be innocent and you with the knowledge that the real killer will now never be found!  It's happened plenty of times before.  On a more day to day basis, if you are the victim of a robbery and have to give evidence do you really want the trial delayed time and again because the defence lack the quality staff necessary to prepare the defence case meaning that it is necessary to seek adjournments over and over again?

How close are we to complete collapse of the criminal defence service as we know it?  The link I posted earlier contains a mention of the Otterburn report that shows that on average legal aid firms across all disciplines will see a fall in profit from 7% to a loss of 26% as a result of recent legal aid cuts.  In criminal legal aid the average profit margin after the removal of committal fees will be just 5%.

I double-dare you to go on Dragon's Den and pitch a business idea where you'll only achieve a 5% profit.


  1. To make it even better, in addition to cut rates, in our particular area they're also talking about "flexible working" which seems to mean starting Court early and finishing late. I have no idea how the partners at my firm are going to work this if it comes in as I know I'm not working longer days without being paid more, but at the same time we get paid less through legal aid.

  2. Belly, I like the idea of flexible working. I assume it means that I can show up to court as and when I like... haha well maybe.

    I can't see longer opening hours working very well since the court staff will never go for it. Sure they'll pull together for short periods in emergencies but asking a low paid list caller or gaoler to work a couple of hours longer each day (or 10 hours extra per week) and I'm pretty sure you'll see the picket lines forming before the magistrates can tuck into their tea and biscuits.

    1. To be frank we are now relying on the public sector unions involved to prevent it coming in without us actually having to do anything...


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…