Legal Village
« Transfer test at best a qualified success | False economies of scale | A new hat for ennobled Knapp? »
False economies of scale
Posted 25/01/2007 by Fiona Woolf
I’ve just returned from a marathon session – three 20-hour days – of market-opening in India! And I’m pleased to say we did make progress.
It’s been fairly widely reported elsewhere and it goes to show how important it is to get the human face of the English legal profession out there. The old BT/Bob Hoskins adage that “it’s good to talk” really is true in this kind of work.
From international work, which is meat and drink to me, I have been making a new departure into legal aid. You might think I wouldn’t have much to bring to the party – but just maybe it is an advantage not to be a legal aid practitioner, as I can look at the issues from a different angle.
My starting point is the same as that of everyone else. Access to justice, heath and education were the three main pillars of the post-war reforms. A lot more time, effort and money has gone into heath and education. We all agree that doctors, nurses and teachers need to be properly paid – so why not lawyers?
Legal aid lawyers haven’t seen what we could recognise as a real pay rise since 1993. So when the Carter team first mentioned their market model (I have spent 15 years implementing them), I didn’t buy their view that economies of scale would create a rich vein of silver.
I got some market economists to crunch the numbers; their research backed up my hunch that legal aid work is barely profitable.
Our 'What Price Justice?' campaign has been a great way of uniting the profession behind the cause of access to justice. The large firms have given me a lot of support. Many of their people help at legal advice centres and they are worried about being swamped. So there is another angle that someone from the City can bring to the party.
Then there is the angle of a commercial contracts lawyer. I spent a miserable day over Christmas trying to get my head around the Legal Services Commission's (LSC's) draft Unified Standard Contract Terms 2007 – one piece of the nightmare jigsaw puzzle under which legal aid lawyers will be forced to operate and which, to me, seems hugely flawed and unlikely to be enforceable.
One of the many troubles with the contract is that the LSC can change the contract term like it changes its socks. The contract drafting is so loose that it is not really a contract at all and you might as well agree to do as you are told.
I would venture that GPs are better treated than this. Surely the LSC would want to get right its relationship with suppliers? After all, they are supposed to be reducing their own budget by a third. There must be a win-win solution and we will persevere in our work with the LSC.
Next week I launch the great Quality of Life debate with the Corporation of London and financial firms. See my next blog and the Law Society’s Professional Update for details.
Categories
- Andrew Holroyd
- Bar Talk
- Barbara Hewson
- Ben Hallman in Iraq
- Bill Knight
- Charles Hollander QC
- Charles Martin
- Christine Kings
- Christoph von Teichman
- Clare Murray
- Dan Tench
- Deepak Malhotra
- Fiona Woolf
- Investment Banker
- Joanne Edwards
- John Malpas
- Jonathan Djanogly MP
- Jonathan Goldstein
- Mark Dawkins
- Mark Rawlinson
- Mike Semple Piggot
- Nigel Savage
- Phillip Fletcher
- Pro bono
- Quentin Poole
- Robert Hunter
- Simon Davis
- Stephen Gillespie
- Sunil Gadhia
- Ted Greeno
RSSRecent Posts
- SSQ in Tanzania: hope springs in Mwandege 3/06/2008
- From narrative to value 3/06/2008
- SSQ in Tanzania: welcome aboard!21/05/2008
- Did interrogation lawyers pass the buck?21/05/2008
Comments
I was a trainee at Cameron McKenna when Fiona Woolf was a partner and I remember being v impressed by her then. At the recent Law Society meeting I think she did not get enough credit for the work she is doing to counter these Carter proposals. Lord Carter may have a peerage but that does not excuse the euphemistic language in his proposals.
"A reduction in service requirements" is his way of saying, "I am giving all you dedicated public service professionals a totally undeserved pay-cut of 15%-30% but, hey, you are doing a great job and I hope you don't notice what I am really doing, as I have disguised it with page after page of confusing jargon and false praise".
Many lawyers go into legal aid work rather than commercial work out of a sense of public duty and a desire to help the vulnerable but who will do it if these proposals go through? I have a heart but not at the hourly rates he is suggesting. Let's hope the Judical Review will succeed! Keep up the good work Fiona! We need your sharp brain at its best!
Posted by Ben Kaplinsky | 23/03/2007
Good to see Fiona getting stuck in on the Legal Aid front, the contract with LSC has always had the element of"Do as you are told"
According to the press,GP's are getting another pay increase, any particular reason?
Posted by Charlotte Collier | 26/01/2007
I have been practicing criminal law for over 25 years briefly as a prosecutor and more recently as a sole practitioner with 3 office sites and 20 staff.
I consider myself an innovator trying various ways to buck the trend of decreasing profitability and find it frustrating that every time I move forward further obstacles are imposed which counter my own endeavours.
I do not need to make any comment about 13 years without an increase in remuneration save to say advice deserts will arise, the vulnerable will struggle to find a lawyer, and it will not be very long before the dilution of professional skills will lead to an exponential rise in the number of persons sent to custody.
It is ironic that at a time when the treasury concerns are to save every penny they can, that the inevitable result of the current policy will cause say £40k per year saving for each lost solicitor which will be completely offset by a similar increase for every person kept in custody.
It would only require one solicitor to prevent 2 prisoners from a year in custody to make him cost effective from a treasury perspective.
I suspect in total terms solicitors annually pay for themselves many times over by persuading the courts to impose "other" options and may therefore be considered a necessary "control" of the prison population.
The effect of a short period of defence solicitor "inactivity" at the present time would be catastrophic to present plans to try and limit the prison population and the finger of blame should quite rightly be pointed at the root cause (despite the likely spin aimed at the profession).
More not fewer Defence Solicitors is the solution and a reversal of the pre-set policy designed to "cull" those who are last in line to stand up for the rights of the individual against the ever increasing might of the state.
Posted by Ged Hale Solicitor | 26/01/2007
I fully support your view. Lawyers should be reasonably paid.
Posted by YAU Chap Yin | 26/01/2007