Evidence submitted by Alderson Dodds (LAR
134)
INTRODUCTION
1. This firm is a mixed general practice
and probably the largest firm in Northumberland. In addition to
commercial and private client business we also do some regulatory
work and our practice extends outside the region.
2. We hold a wider portfolio of Legal Aid
Contracts than any other firm or organisation within the County.
We are as close to being a CLAC as any solicitors' firm could
be. We have an established referral system from Blyth Valley CAB
and provide services by way of referrals from across the County
and as far north as Berwick upon Tweed.
3. We are presently seeking Housing and
Education Contracts but the paralysis imposed by this consultation
prevents us taking that forward.
4. We would have welcomed the Carter Review
had it been a wide ranging review of Legal Aid, its working and
its funding. The extremely narrow scope of its terms of reference
to procurement in our view has made it something of a sterile
exercise. No consideration has been given to the external factors
affecting the cost of Legal Aid. No consideration has been given
to alternative sources of funding, such as a diversion of local
authority and charitable funding away from the Not for Profit
sector to the more cost effective front line providers. Defendant
Costs Orders and alternative directions for funding of experts
are all matters which could usefully have been considered in the
wholescale review which is needed.
5. We have not sought to address every single
issue raised in the Report but direct our observations to matters
of particular concern. We are certainly not opposed to the market
principle, nor indeed to fixed fees. There are some areas, however,
where these are simply unworkable.
CRIME
6. We are of the view that fixed fees are
unsustainable in the Police Station and particularly if waiting
time is to be incorporated within the fixed fee. The Police Station
is a combative environment where the solicitor has little or no
control over any timetable. We do not suggest the Police as a
whole act dishonourably, but certainly any practitioner will frequently
encounter efforts to undermine representation of an individual.
Police Officers will be mindful of the fact that solicitors will
be financially disadvantaged if they attend clients where they
are likely to be kept waiting a long time or alternatively where
the insistence on say a full interview or an identification parade
would lead to potential losses to the solicitor. The imposition
of fixed fees creates a strong business case for not providing
a service incorporating best practice for the client. The failures
would not manifest themselves in Peer Review but may well do so
in terms of miscarriages of justice. We do not oppose fixed fees
in the Magistrates' Court where there is effectively an equality
of arms between prosecutor and defendant with the Court presiding.
There are no similar checks or balances operating within the Police
Station where the Police hold the balance of power.
7. The geographical groupings suggested
by the Carter Review for the North East have provided some bizarre
results. We are aware that the solicitor members of the Regional
Duty Solicitor Committee are endeavouring to correct a number
of factual errors in the information relied on by the Carter Team
in relation to functioning Police Stations and Courts. It is a
matter of concern to us that proposals may be rolled out based
on false information.
8. We are of the view that the Carter Team
is mistaken in principle in its grouping of various areas. It
is apparent that a decision has been taken to graft on to metropolitan
areas adjacent rural areas. It is our view that what should happen
is that the various, rural areas should be amalgamated together.
This would prevent the suppliers within these rural areas becoming
swamped. They would then be in a viable position to bid for contracts
across the rural areas. Most of the providers within the rural
areas are not single-service providers but generally provide at
least family provision in addition to crime. The Carter style
grouping could well have the unintended consequence of eliminating
the supplier network of civil Legal Aid services across the rural
areas. It is suggested that this would in no way undermine larger
groupings within the metropolitan areas and indeed it may avoid
some dilution of profitability within them.
9. We would suggest that if there is to
be a grouping within our area then it should be Berwick, Alnwick,
South East Northumberland and Hexham and Tynedale.
10. We would oppose the inclusion of a metropolitan
area with this grouping but would suggest that if there has to
be one it should be North Tyneside. The inclusion of South Tyneside
within this grouping ignores all geographical and community logic
and the existence of the River Tyne.
LEGAL HELP
11. Legal Help is already a marginal activity
so far as practices such as ours are concerned. A high degree
of efficiency and productivity is required to maintain profitability.
Any reduction in fees would make the work unsustainable.
12. We are of the view that a differential
level of fees for Legal Help is quite clearly justifiable so far
as London is concerned. We cannot see that it is justified other
than in London. The different regional fees proposed seem to bear
no relation to relative overheads or costs. They are obviously
based on historic information. The logic of this approach would
be to retain tailored fixed fees which at least address more local
variations rather than the broad brush stroke of regional payments.
It would appear that the North East as a whole is being penalised
for its relative efficiency. We accordingly support a differential
between London and national fixed fees for areas outside London
but not regional fixed fees.
PUBLIC LAW
CHILDREN WORK
13. We have a heavy and long-term commitment
to this work. Our Senior Partner, who has Higher Court Rights
in All Courts and is. a Children Panel Member, allocates a significant
amount of his time to this work at direct cost to his commercial
and regulatory activities. The Carter Team apparently does not
recognise that within the solicitors' profession there is substantial
commitment to carrying out publicly funded work with a strong
sense of the ethics of being a professional. People will continue
to do this work for relatively modest reward provided it is financially
viable. They will not continue to do the work if they are unable
to sustain their practices in doing it.
14. The Carter view of the failure to attract
membership to the Children Panel is wholly misconceived. It is
not a failure to respond to a financial incentive. The point is
that a 15% incentive on a very low base rate of fees is not going
to attract large numbers of people whose skills are relatively
easily transferable to far more profitable work.' It is not the
failure of the financial incentive but rather the paucity of the
same in return for the efforts, talent and cost required which
leads to the relatively low number of practitioners. acquiring
this expertise. The Children Panel is a valuable asset in the
protection of children and it should not be squandered.
15. It is our view that fixed fees are unsustainable
in Public Law child care work. Children's lawyers are not only
a vital part of the Court process but play a very substantial
role in child protection conferences and other areas ancillary
to the Court process. Time and time again, working in conjunction
with Guardians, one is able to put right bad practice within Social
Services Departments, which themselves are often over-stretched
and under-funded and advised by lawyers who sometimes see themselves
as having the Social Workers as clients rather than the particular
children concerned. This is not to denigrate the work of local
authority lawyers for whom we have high regard. A close working
relationship can, however, make one over protective of one's colleagues.
Fixed fees in this area are simply a disincentive to best practice.
The adoption of this proposal would expose the most vulnerable
in our society in apparent complete conflict with Government aims.
16. We have done an examination of the level
of fixed fees proposed. We simply could not. afford to do this
type of work on the present level of fixed fees or indeed anything
like it. We calculate on the basis of our last six substantial
cases that whereas we would normally be working for a third of
our private client rate, we would in fact be working for one tenth
under the fixed fee regime. We simply cannot afford to do that
and would have to drop out of the system.
17. The suggestion that Solicitor Advocates
should be paid less than members of the Bar whose overheads are
insignificant in comparison is neither fair nor logical nor economic.
In this area the work of the solicitor is very often more specialist
than the barrister and these differentials would create a positive
disincentive to solicitor advocacy. It is often the solicitor
who is the constant
factor in the case, providing a source of continuity
which the Bar with the regular problem of returned briefs is not
able to provide.
18. Child Care Solicitors chambers. We find
this Suggestion remarkable. It may be useful for one or
two individuals in substantial metropolitan areas.
It is certainly not an attractive business proposition for any
established practitioner with any semblance of a reasonable business.
To commit entirely to relatively low value publicly funded work
with all the uncertainties that surround Legal Aid and which will
continue, whatever the outcome of the Carter Review, is not a
sensible career strategy.
GENERAL
19. Our overall concern is to the viability
of the Legal Aid sector which provides vital services to the most
disadvantaged and vulnerable members of our community. It is our
intention to continue to do this work for as long as it is financially
viable. The problem with the Carter Review is that it fails to
acknowledge that the present service is chronically under-funded.
The external pressures on Legal Aid have not been examined. The
effect of various areas of Government policy, in particular in
relation to criminal justice are disregarded. We see no alternative
to a significant injection of further funds and would invite serious
consideration of alternative funding if resources cannot be found
from general taxation.
October 2006
| 
