*/
Criminal Bar Association members have voted overwhelmingly in favour of the Ministry of Justice ‘deal’ to defer cuts to the Advocates Graduated Fee Scheme (AGFS) and to suspend further action. In a controversial agreement struck with Bar leaders at the end of March, the Government agreed to defer the AGFS changes until summer 2015 in exchange for calling off the ‘no returns’ policy and future days of action: “This will allow us to take into account the outcomes of the reviews by Sir Bill Jeffrey and Sir Brian Leveson, as well as any impact on legal aid spend from falling crime rates, and earlier remuneration changes. In the same way, we will consider any impact from the above factors before introducing the second fee reduction for litigators.”
As a condition of the deal, the Bar Council and CBA made clear that there was no in principle objection to working on Very High Cost Cases at the new rates, and the Government pledged to continue to engage with the Bar leaders. The Lord Chancellor Chris Grayling stated: “I have always said that, given the current economic climate, I have no choice but to make savings, but that I also wanted to do what I could to ease their effects on lawyers. Hopefully [the] agreement proves that I am true to my word.”
However the decision – made in an emergency meeting of the CBA Executive – to accept the offer in its two-day window prompted “angry criticism” from barristers, chambers and solicitors that the full membership was not consulted and that the deal was “anti-solicitor”, effectively splitting apart the professions.
CBA Chair Nigel Lithman QC explained: “It was not practicable to ballot the Bar in the time frame. At the same time, the Circuits consulted or met with Heads of Chambers on their individual Circuits. The vote was overwhelming in favour from five of the Circuits, the Heads of Chambers on the South East Circuit who were informed were 100%.” He added: “We genuinely believed we could get you no better [deal].”
Calls for an extraordinary general meeting precipitated a full ballot of the CBA membership in April. An unprecedented turnout saw 1,878 votes cast: 1,249 voted to accept the deal and suspend further action (66.51%); whilst 629 (33.49%) voted to continue action until all cuts have been abandoned. Welcoming the mandate, Lithman said that this was the “first step” of a “long road ahead” and that the views of the one-third who “felt obvious misgivings about how the Bar would be impacted upon by cuts and dual contracts being imposed on solicitors… will not be ignored”.
“Whilst the CBA has naturally concentrated on removing the imminent threat of cuts to the junior Bar, it knows that this has to be seen within a broader context. We will thus now hope to reengage with solicitors and hold constructive talks. “The immediate task to hand is for the leadership to reunite the membership as we move forward in pursuit of an ever more secure criminal Bar.”
Bar Chairman Nicholas Lavender QC said the deal was “testament to the profession’s commitment to speaking with one voice in making sincere and evidence-based arguments, steeped in the public interest”.
“In the interests of building sustainable and high quality legal representation, we should take this opportunity to move forwards, by engaging with the reviews... resuming normal working relationships with our partners in the criminal justice system and calling off any further days of action.”
Criminal Law Solicitors Association Chair Bill Waddington expressed his disappointment at the deal, noting that the “more substantial” concessions to the Bar “may well reflect their unity and militancy”. Together with the London Criminal Courts Solicitors Assocation, it is coordinating a “fast moving, rolling programme” of direct action, including withdrawal days from Crown Courts. Having received “positive counsel”, they are also raising funds to challenge the Ministry’s handling of the legal aid cuts through judicial review.
However the decision – made in an emergency meeting of the CBA Executive – to accept the offer in its two-day window prompted “angry criticism” from barristers, chambers and solicitors that the full membership was not consulted and that the deal was “anti-solicitor”, effectively splitting apart the professions.
CBA Chair Nigel Lithman QC explained: “It was not practicable to ballot the Bar in the time frame. At the same time, the Circuits consulted or met with Heads of Chambers on their individual Circuits. The vote was overwhelming in favour from five of the Circuits, the Heads of Chambers on the South East Circuit who were informed were 100%.” He added: “We genuinely believed we could get you no better [deal].”
Calls for an extraordinary general meeting precipitated a full ballot of the CBA membership in April. An unprecedented turnout saw 1,878 votes cast: 1,249 voted to accept the deal and suspend further action (66.51%); whilst 629 (33.49%) voted to continue action until all cuts have been abandoned. Welcoming the mandate, Lithman said that this was the “first step” of a “long road ahead” and that the views of the one-third who “felt obvious misgivings about how the Bar would be impacted upon by cuts and dual contracts being imposed on solicitors… will not be ignored”.
“Whilst the CBA has naturally concentrated on removing the imminent threat of cuts to the junior Bar, it knows that this has to be seen within a broader context. We will thus now hope to reengage with solicitors and hold constructive talks. “The immediate task to hand is for the leadership to reunite the membership as we move forward in pursuit of an ever more secure criminal Bar.”
Bar Chairman Nicholas Lavender QC said the deal was “testament to the profession’s commitment to speaking with one voice in making sincere and evidence-based arguments, steeped in the public interest”.
“In the interests of building sustainable and high quality legal representation, we should take this opportunity to move forwards, by engaging with the reviews... resuming normal working relationships with our partners in the criminal justice system and calling off any further days of action.”
Criminal Law Solicitors Association Chair Bill Waddington expressed his disappointment at the deal, noting that the “more substantial” concessions to the Bar “may well reflect their unity and militancy”. Together with the London Criminal Courts Solicitors Assocation, it is coordinating a “fast moving, rolling programme” of direct action, including withdrawal days from Crown Courts. Having received “positive counsel”, they are also raising funds to challenge the Ministry’s handling of the legal aid cuts through judicial review.
Criminal Bar Association members have voted overwhelmingly in favour of the Ministry of Justice ‘deal’ to defer cuts to the Advocates Graduated Fee Scheme (AGFS) and to suspend further action. In a controversial agreement struck with Bar leaders at the end of March, the Government agreed to defer the AGFS changes until summer 2015 in exchange for calling off the ‘no returns’ policy and future days of action: “This will allow us to take into account the outcomes of the reviews by Sir Bill Jeffrey and Sir Brian Leveson, as well as any impact on legal aid spend from falling crime rates, and earlier remuneration changes. In the same way, we will consider any impact from the above factors before introducing the second fee reduction for litigators.”
As a condition of the deal, the Bar Council and CBA made clear that there was no in principle objection to working on Very High Cost Cases at the new rates, and the Government pledged to continue to engage with the Bar leaders. The Lord Chancellor Chris Grayling stated: “I have always said that, given the current economic climate, I have no choice but to make savings, but that I also wanted to do what I could to ease their effects on lawyers. Hopefully [the] agreement proves that I am true to my word.”
Chair of the Bar finds common ground on legal services between our two jurisdictions, plus an update on jury trials
A £500 donation from AlphaBiolabs has been made to the leading UK charity tackling international parental child abduction and the movement of children across international borders
Marie Law, Director of Toxicology at AlphaBiolabs, outlines the drug and alcohol testing options available for family law professionals, and how a new, free guide can help identify the most appropriate testing method for each specific case
By Louise Crush of Westgate Wealth Management
Marie Law, Director of Toxicology at AlphaBiolabs, examines the latest ONS data on drug misuse and its implications for toxicology testing in family law cases
An interview with Rob Wagg, CEO of New Park Court Chambers
With at least 31 reports of AI hallucinations in UK legal cases – over 800 worldwide – and judges using AI to assist in judicial decision-making, the risks and benefits are impossible to ignore. Matthew Lee examines how different jurisdictions are responding
What has changed, and why? Paul Secher unpacks the new standards aligning the recruiting, training and appraising of judges – the first major change to the system for ten years
The deprivation of liberty is the most significant power the state can exercise. Drawing on frontline experience, Chris Henley KC explains why replacing trial by jury with judge-only trials risks undermining justice
Ever wondered what a pupillage is like at the CPS? This Q and A provides an insight into the training, experience and next steps
The appointments of 96 new King’s Counsel (also known as silk) are announced today
