The Transforming Legal Aid proposals, currently under consultation, will see criminal legal fees cut across the sector and fixed charges introduced in place of graduated fees dependent on the progress of cases. Private companies which aren’t traditional law firms will be invited to bid for around 400 legal aid contracts – a huge drop from the existing 1,600 accredited firms, which could see many high street solicitors forced to close.
The planned introduction of tendering in criminal legal aid will mean people will no longer have any choice over who represents them. They’ll be allocated a firm instead, and defendants will only be able to request another solicitor in “exceptional circumstances”. The procurements will be on price and price alone; meaning such providers will compete only on margin and not on quality.
This price-obsessed philosophy could hardly be less appropriate for the procuring of sophisticated legal services. All incentive to offer an above average service will be lost and standards will inevitably plummet. Impossible burdens will be heaped upon practitioners and the harmonisation of fees could even leave defendants feeling pressured into pleading guilty.
The justification for these proposals is savings – Justice Secretary Chris Grayling has vowed to shave £220million from the £2billion legal aid bill. But what about the additional costs and delays that will inevitably result without the provision of proper legal advice and representation?
What happens every day in our criminal courts affects the lives of millions and squeezing out decent professionals will only undermine fair trials for defendants and vulnerable victims alike. That all of this comes so hot on the heels of other misguided reforms only intensifies the wider threat to fine traditions of equal, open justice. By the time the Government’s finished, what will be left of such previously proud practices?
