Evidence submitted by Julia Bainbridge,
Saunders Solicitors (LAR 205)
The following response is based on my own view
as a criminal defence solicitor of three years qualification and
not necessarily the collective view of the firm in which I am
employed.
Having attended various courses in the past
few months about the implementation of the proposals in Lord Carter's
report I have grave concerns regarding the future of my career
and the future of the legal aid system and therefore justice as
a whole.
From the viewpoint of a Duty Solicitor, the
proposals strip me of my status and belittle the years of commitment
required to qualify as a Duty Solicitor and provide a high quality
of legal advice and representation to an entirely cross section
of society.
London of course has a large number of police
stations which causes a further concern in relation to the payment
scheme proposed by Lord Carter. When one is on the "central
London scheme", eight police stations are covered, not including
the British Transport police stations such as Ebury Bridge and
Central London BTP. Representatives are often called upon to travel
from one end of London to another often in black cabs in order
to abide by the regulations of the Legal Services Commission that
they must be at the police station within forty-five minutes of
being asked to attend. The new proposal suggests that we are not
paid separately for travel at all and that a fixed fee is a suitable
way of reducing costs in this area of legal aid. I can see that
certainly, it is a way of reducing costs but greatly at the expense
of quality and fairness.
When a representative is asked to attend the
police station out of hours for a case which is expected to last
a number of hours, how is the firm to be able to offer an attractive
payment to that representative when the fixed fee is only £313
whether that is in office hours or not and more importantly, whether
it lasts one hour or twenty-odd hours?
The effect of the fixed fee proposal at the
police station will be that it will be very difficult to find
anyone willing to attend for potentially half of the bill and
therefore £156. A police station attendance lasting eight
hours, which is very common would provide a legally qualified
professional a paltry £19.50 per hour. This figure of course
including travel and waiting and the advice telephone call.
Persons arrested are not necessarily repeat
offenders or the unemployed vagrant which the public may perceive.
The Duty Solicitor scheme provides advice and representation to
all whether a doctor, teacher or vicar and the principle that
every person no matter what background should be entitled to advice
for free where their liberty is in question is a principle the
Government should be proud of and not ashamed.
Reducing rates for police station attendance
will affect justice further down the line and there will be an
inclination to rush attendances (if anybody volunteers to go)
and advice will be improper and there will be miscarriages of
justice.
The Legal Services Commission confirms that
the budget for police stations and magistrates court is under
control and this is of course despite the number of amendments
made in recent years and the fact that we as a profession have
had to come to terms with the fact that in continuing in a career
we feel strongly about effectively means we are resigning ourselves
to earning much less than our equally qualified civil counterparts.
Dealing with cutting costs in this way does not tackle the real
causes of increased costs.
The proposed "20% rule" in relation
to clients who ask for a particular firm to represent them at
the police station but who have found themselves out of the requisite
postal code is also a very worrying proposal. Competition on quality
and reputation will not be possible given the limited ability
for clients to choose their own solicitor. London is not an area
where such a scheme is practical, there being so many police stations,
Magistrates Courts and Crown Courts scattered over a greater area.
In conclusion, it appears that the proposals
are aimed at professionals cutting corners and providing a sub-standard
service and pressure will be on all of us to not exceed the minimal
amount of work in order to move onto the next case as in many
criminal firms, there is already little profit being made in criminal
legal aid and the proposals will put many out of their jobs and
obviously dissuade high quality lawyers from joining the already
poorly paid area of law.
Criminal defence lawyers do not enter this profession
with aspirations of very high earnings but they do hope to attain
a certain level of comfortable earnings to suitably reflect the
hard work, commitment and academic standards gained on the long
path to qualification.
I ask that this letter be counted as a response
to the proposals Lord Carter made and hope that the Committee
will view it along with the other concerns of my fellow criminal
defence lawyers.
October 2006
| 
