This has
been a tough year for the legal profession, especially those who provide
services for ordinary people.
Legal aid
has been virtually wiped out. In that small number of cases where it remains
available, the fees have been reduced to such levels as to make it prohibitive
as a commercial option. Criminal Practitioners in particular have had to face
the spectre of competitive tendering and the possibility of losing work to
major corporate providers –
These are
some of the most hardworking and dedicated lawyers.
Those who
do Personal injury work have seen their fees slashed to a level that has seen
many firms decide to close the door –
This has
been largely driven by the insurance industry on the back of a fantasy known as
the compensation culture. As the dust settles on all of this, firms are now
having to take stock and plan their futures in this very different world. One
recent report has found that one third of small to medium sized firms expect that
they will need to merge or be taken over in order to continue –
This is all
familiar news especially to anybody who has followed this blog for the last few
months. And it is all a bit bleak for law firms and those who need legal
advice but lack the means to pay for it.
But one
recent proposal just adds insult to injury. It is being suggested that the gaps
in access to justice can be filled by making it mandatory for lawyers to work
for nothing. So lawyers would not be permitted to practice unless they carried
out a set number of hours of free work. Another proposal is it to make it a compulsory
element of legal training so a student cannot qualify unless he/she does so
many hours of free work.
How far are
we expected to go?
Most
lawyers already do huge amounts of free work. According to the Law Society
Gazette, 44% of solicitors did free work in the last year. I imagine that that understates
the reality. At the same time as a record number of firms are closing, they could be forced to plug the gap in legal services by working for nothing. Get real.
If the
government acknowledge that there is unmet legal need then they should deal
with this by way of a properly funded legal aid scheme. The stock answer to this is
that cuts have to be made. Of course they do. But the money is found to pay for
a top class court building for big businesses –
It is
really a matter of priority.
Lawyers who
want to act for the less well off are told to do it at rock bottom rates or
better still, for nothing.
For Johnson Injury Law , it would be hypocritical to say that they don't mind not being paid accordingly, but I can attest that they don't ask for payment unless the case is won and their client who was dealt with personal injury is well compensated for. So I feel your frustration with the recent proposal because some Lawyers are willing to work around a client's budget, but to make their services free would discourage these lawyers to take service requests from the less fortunate, money-wise. I think the best solution for this is for the court to include lawyer's fee to be paid by the offender once they are proven guilty. This would be separate amount from the fine that they will be obliged to give the plaintiff. What do you think?
ReplyDelete