After decades of cuts the CJS is in crisis. The Law Society’s Judicial Review of the cap to PPE, the decision of the CBA to demand the withdrawal of the new AGFS scheme and the recent spectacular failures of disclosure are all rooted in under funding.

Police methods have fundamentally changed and electronic data is a major cost driver. It appears to be the strategy of the MOJ to try to move away from their own invention of systems of payment in which page count has been a proxy for value.

Reshuffling fees and claiming the result as “cost neutral” will simply not do. Inflation erodes value year on year. Only the injection of new money can right the imbalance caused by years of fee attrition for Litigators and Advocates.

Solicitor Higher Court Advocates deal with about 24 % of trials and 40% of pleas. This is a common fight for fair remuneration across the Profession which has a recruitment and retention crisis.

Your professional duties to clients who will inevitably appear unrepresented in the Crown Court are very helpfully explained by The Law Society here.

Your firm’s contractual duties are set out below.

We believe it is vital that negotiations with the MoJ encompass the issues raised above. We are meeting the CBA with the CLSA to discuss a common negotiating body and how these issues are best taken forward. In the meantime we have no doubt that Solicitor Advocates are busy fulfilling their Duty scheme responsibilities.  We will keep you informed of the progress of our talks.

Day of Action:                                                                                                                                                               

The Justice Alliance is holding a vigil to justice on 18th April. See the details here.

The 2017 Contract:

Clients’ interests and independence

7.2       In performing Contract Work, you must act in the best interests of your Clients and be uninfluenced by any factor other than the Clients’ (and potential Clients’) best interests. Any breach by you of this Clause 7.2 will deemed to be a Fundamental Breach.

7.3       Where you instruct Counsel or in-house advocate to conduct Crown Court advocacy services, before giving such instructions you must consult the Client about the use and the selection of Counsel or in-house advocate and advise the Client of:

(a) The name;

(b) Status;

(c) Experience; and

(d) Suitability,

of this Counsel or in-house advocate to conduct advocacy in each such case having regard to the nature of that case and its complexity and the existence of alternative Counsel or in-house advocate whom the Client may choose to be instructed (subject to availability). In circumstances where you have determined through your reasonable enquiries that there is no alternative Counsel or in-house advocate actually available, you must also advise the Client of that fact.

7.4       Where Counsel or in-house advocate is instructed pursuant to Clause 7.3, if the chosen Counsel or in-house advocate becomes unavailable you must take all reasonable steps to instructs another Counsel or in-house advocate of equivalent standing and, so far as is practicable, advise the Client of the merits and suitability of the proposed replacement.

7.5       You must keep a Record (in accordance with the provisions of Clauses 8.3 and 8.4) to demonstrate your compliance with Clause 7.3.

7.6       If you become aware of any act or omission that would justify a claim against you by a Client, you must promptly advise the Client to obtain independent advice (and keep a copy of your letter on the Client’s file).