Evidence submitted by Linda Filby (LAR
196)
ADVERSE AFFECT
ON THE
PROVISION OF
LEGAL SERVICES
1. Small firms unlikely to be awarded contacts
removing Client choice. Clients should be able to choose the solicitor
they wish to act for them and in whom they have confidence.
2. This will have an adverse affect on firms
owned by "minority" practitioners
This includes myself. As a severely disabled
person running my own practice I am likely to be unemployed by
another firm and believe that I will be unemployable as a result
of these proposals.
I have cerebral palsy and I spent many years
having daily physiotherapy as a result I was behind with my education,
took my A levels on a part time basis and then I took a mature
student degree. I qualified as a solicitor in 1993, starting my
own practice in 1995. I have always worked and only for a
short period during my working life have I found it necessary
to claim unemployment benefit. I have never claimed long term
sickness benefit.
Whilst the Parliamentary under-Secretary of
State has indicated in a letter to my MP indicates that under
the new regime "there should be plenty of money available
to ensure that efficient provides can earn a good living from
Legal Aid work" this does not mean that I would be awarded
a contract.
Page 105 of Lord Carter's report shows his design
of a model firm:-
1 equity partner : 11 fee earners
2 equity partners : 27 fee earners
All his figures are based around firms achieving
this ratio. My firm will never fit into this scenario and I doubt
that at my age and with my disability I would be employed by another
firm, large enough to fit into the criteria or otherwise. Any
partner's concern when employing me may be the concern of insurance
cost and their view of my ability to do the work because of my
disability, whether it would be a realistic view is another matter.
I would not be able to afford to expand my practice sufficiently
to fit the criteria.
The fact that minority groups and small practices
will be removed from the provision of Legal Services in this way
will lead to less choice being available to our Clients. Practices
of differing size and structure will disappear. Not all our Clients
will want to be represented by large firms which they might regard
as impersonal.
3. It seems apparent that in some towns
only one or maybe two contracts will be awarded. As a result firms
will go out of business. The diverse base of solicitors firms
which exists will disappear. It will not be possible for all firms
to merge into larger units. This will involve high set up costs,
with the difficulty of finding suitable premises and the cost
of support technology. It must be doubted whether the partners
of these larger firms will be in a position to take on the level
or debt required to support practices of the size required. They
would ultimately be responsible for that debt and face bankruptcy
as a result as only in rare cases are solicitors firms limited
companies.
4. Solicitors will be encouraged to spend
less time on cases if they are paid fixed fees for police station
work. The fees which a solicitor will be paid under the proposals
mean that a rate of £12 per hour will be paid for any case
regardless of the seriousness of the case or the complexity of
the advice required. It is not until a time scale of 16 hours
has been reached that a case will fall out of the standard fee.
The same fee could be paid for advising a detainee charges with
shoplifting or another charged with murder or serious fraud. No
travel or waiting time is paid. This means that as soon as advice
is concluded a solicitor will leave the police station if he/she
feels that the limit has been reached for the fee collected.
This does not take into account delays built
into the criminal justice system which are beyond the control
of solicitors. Solicitors are called to attend the police station
often to find that the officer dealing with the case has been
called away, is delayed with the Case Director or the appropriate
adult who is to assist a youth trainee has been delayed. In other
cases, if there are multiple defendants, all the solicitors are
called to attend the custody centre at the same time, although
only one of the detainees is interviewed at a time.
Case direction at a busy police station or advice
from CPS direct can take anything up to four hours and a detainee
might require further advice from a solicitor if a further interview
is to take place or representations in relation to bail are required.
If a solicitor has left the police station it would be necessary
to return, with no payment for traveling or waiting.
5. There is to be a freeze on the admission
of new Duty solicitors. This means that firms will not be able
to appoint new duty solicitors and therefore will not be able
to grow to meet the criteria to apply for a contract. This is
creating a false market. It has been extremely difficult to appoint
young newly qualified solicitors into criminal defense. The Law
Society acknowledges that the Carter proposals will lead to 400
firms ceasing to trade. A large number of the solicitors who work
for those firms will either move to work in other fields or cease
to practice. In such an environment where will the Duty solicitors
of the future come from?
6. At the anticipated law rate of future
payment for police station work it will be virtually impossible
to employ solicitors who will be willing to go to the police station
to deal with detainees (often in the early hours of the morning
and often in unpleasant circumstances). Fixed fees set at this
level of payment will discourage trainees from taking legal aid
work in the first place.
October 2006
| 
