Bar Council launches new debate over legal aid
20 May 2008
Discussion Paper calls for reforms to protect the most vulnerable and the interests of justice
A world-class legal aid system, held in the same esteem as the NHS, is the objective of a new debate over publicly funded legal services being launched today.
The Bar Council, the representative body for nearly 15,000 barristers in England and Wales, has published Legal Aid and the Public Interest: Towards an Effective Public Private Partnership to get the debate over the troubled legal aid system back on track.
The Discussion Paper is designed as the start of a ‘conversation’ with stakeholders in the legal aid system, to run between now and the General Election, expected in spring 2010.
It argues that government attempts to conduct a fundamental review of the legal aid system have lost their way, and should be diverted to focus on the most vulnerable and the interests of justice.
Writing in the introduction to the new paper, Tim Dutton QC, Chairman of the Bar says:
‘We may be about to face the irreversible consequences of the erosion of legal aid, brought about by reductions in funding of front-line services by Government.
‘Legal aid is worth standing up for – not for the sake of lawyers, but in the public interest and in the interests of justice.
‘A robust legal aid system serves the goals of the conviction of the guilty and the acquittal of the innocent.
‘It is also a tool for tackling social exclusion, and a powerful weapon in favour of the weak, the victim and hard-working families who deserve a fairer deal from the law.
‘It is in the interests of justice, because the court system cannot operate effectively without the support of suitably qualified and properly paid solicitors and advocates, with a fundamental duty to the court, and a responsibility to do the right thing in the eyes of the law.’
The Discussion Paper sets out a blueprint for a world-class legal aid system, which should be:
- accessible
- independent
- tailored
- affordable
- balanced
- high quality
‘A vision for the legal aid system is needed, one which sets the right balance between funding and quality, access and empowerment, and the ability for all to enjoy a place in society free from crime or oppression,’ the Discussion Paper argues.
It goes on to argue that the implementation of the Legal Services Act 2007 opens up opportunities for the legal profession to offer new ways of delivering legal services.
The Legal Aid and the Public Interest discussion paper is available here.
It floats the idea of a Conditional Legal Aid Fund, as a means for ensuring access to justice for those in need who do not have the means to pay for such access.
Such a fund would be pump-primed by the Legal Services Commission, to provide support to qualifying claims, of which the successful ones would pay back a proportion of their damages, as well as any costs recovered.
The paper points out the contribution made by the independent Bar to the operation of the legal aid system:
‘The self-employed Bar is a highly ethical, closely and efficiently regulated, high quality provider of specialist advocacy and advisory services. The Bar makes an essential contribution to the administration of justice.
‘The existence of a pool of high quality independent specialist advocates provides a vital element of flexibility, without which the courts are unable to function effectively.
‘The organisation of self-employed barristers into chambers ensures a low cost base, which in turn benefits the public interest and the public purse.’
Julia Beer, Chairman of the Young Barristers’ Committee said:
‘This debate will dispel the myth of the ‘fat-cat’ barrister, which has been so irresponsibly deployed by Government in recent years to undermine the legal aid system, and deliver substantial and unacceptable cuts in front-line services.
‘The plain fact is that most barristers doing legal aid work make very modest sums, equivalent to or less than those earned by other public servants.
‘Fees for the junior Bar are now so low that the inevitable consequence will be a drying-up of the talent pool. In an age of increasing student debt there is a real danger that the most talented undergraduates can simply no longer afford to come to the Bar to take on publicly funded work. I have no doubt that this will have irreversible consequences for the operation of the justice system further down the line. In the interests of justice the Government must now stop and consider the long term consequences of the reduction in funding.’
