NNLS - Sound off for Justice Campaign - Meeting with Chloe Smith MP
THE NORFOLK AND NORWICH LAW SOCIETY MINUTES
SOUND OFF FOR JUSTICE MEETING
Norwich – Friday 28 October 2011 ( 1:00pm – 2:30pm)
MP: Chloe Smith (In her position as MP only )
NNLS Chair Person: Sian Carrel (NNLS / GHP Solicitors – Housing Law)
Sian Carrel welcoming Chloe Smith and commencing the meeting with the panel introducing themselves and area’s of work: -
Solicitors Panel:
Simon Nicholls, Belmores Solicitors – Crime and RTA
Andrea Spooner, Fosters – Practice Manager
Gordon Dean, NNLS, NCLS and Gordon Dean Solicitors
David Jones, MJP – Clinical Negligence
Carol McGuiness, Fosters – Matrimonial
Chris Brown, Fosters – Crime
Chris Fletcher, Octagon House Chambers – Crime
Richard Barr, Law Society Council Member, Scott Moncreiff – Clinical Negligence
Roger Holden, NNLS President, Hansells – Clinical Negligence
Claire Emery, NNLS Administrator
(SC) Explaining the legal process and that legal aid rates of pay have stayed the same for five years and with the further proposed reductions we are going to see less and less firms taking the work on and in fact some areas of Norfolk will have no firms taking on legal aid work, such as Dereham and Watton. SC explaining that her firm are the only firm in Norfolk that take on Housing work, explaining that it is difficult economically and under the new proposals there will be only 100 new matter starts in Norfolk. It can be extremely difficult for client’s to get from North Norfolk and once the 100 new matters starts have been used, people will have to travel even further to find a firm with new matter starts left to represent them.
(CS) Explaining that the bill is drawing to close, in fact the ship is very close to sailing if not sailed, but she is back at the commons on Monday. CS also explaining that she has not sat on this committee but she is ‘Sound off for Justice’ aware, she has researched herself and has with her the Law Society’s alternative proposals. CS also explaining she is here today in her position of MP only, despite her recent promotion.
(SC) Explaining the problem further with regard to Housing that Landlords may have legal representative but tenants may not be able to get advice. This would see tenants acting as litigants in person and in turn would drag Court cases out longer, tenants wouldn’t understand the paperwork and Court orders.
(RH) Each case would take twice as much time at Court.
(CS) Confirming her understanding as: - A matter of no legal assistance available and (2) A travel issue?
(SC) Certainly a travel issue, client’s with housing matters could be disadvantaged, not have the means of transport, difficult to fund transport and of course Solicitors can’t make visits to client.
(CS) because you don’t get paid?
(SC) There is no facility for getting paid to visit client’s unless of a disability, in certain areas of law.
(CS) Questioning; is this matter of cutting lower profits or is it a matter of zero profit?
(SC) Absolute zero.
(RH) Explaining the charge out for legal aid matters is around £50 per hour, average Solicitor charge out is around £200 per hour.
(SN) We are all conscious of the financial issues but that isn’t in fact our point. We need to get our point to the government that the cuts will not save money, they may in fact sink the Court system costing public money. We do appreciate that the government needs to make cuts, but this is false savings, it really could sink the Court system. Family lawyers are already typing their own Court papers, this can only cost more in the long run.
(CS) Confirming she has received a letter from Chris Fletcher in this regard.
(SC) The District Judges are expressing the same concerns, they will not be able to cope with litigations in person, it is just not sensible.
(GD) People look at London Corporate and Commercial lawyers as an example, and the legal profession is just not like that, we have fixed overheads of 90%. Salaries are less than half of that of a GP. Looking at the legal profession based on London, the impression is wrong. We feel like the Government are ignoring the advice of The Law Society, The Barr and continuing with the proposals will not save money, will cause greater public expense and in turn greater public misery and who will pick up the mess? NCLS, the CAB and Shelter?
(SC) The CAB/NCLS are choca-block, they are bursting at the seams – where are people going to go? We appreciate the guts to general legal aid. It has rightly put a stop to the silly disputes. The ones where you know that if client’s had to pay for the legal work they wouldn’t make the claims. Our concerns are for people with genuine problems, who have no choice but to take matters to Court and will have no access to legal advice.
(RH) This will mean no legal advice for matrimonial, the concerns are for say females with children and no income, perhaps Carol McGuiness could advise?
(CS) With regards to domestic violence, protections and provisions have been made, these are positive?
(CM) The provisions for Domestic Violence are potentially going to work.
(CF) Its simple to deal with, its Court Protection, it’s cheaper and no one is disagreeing. With matrimonial its a powerful argument and we don’t know what the answer is. This has been raised by the Chairman of the Bar to Ken Clarke and there has been no answer. It’s difficult to see what will happen and will be a legal challenge.
(GD) You need to listen to the profession, the government did last time at the 11th hour took our advice on board. We are genuinely wanting to be heard to narrow the problems and not our lack of profits. Without Solicitors preparing the papers for client’s before they get to Court will not only cost time at the Court but led to problems such as the children or abused being cross examined by their abusers in Court.
CS: What I have already raised are the following 7 points: -
(1) Financial Imbalance
(2) Defining disability
(3) Abuser cross examining
(4) Domestic Abductions
(5) The Court system and litigants in person
(6) Social services
(7) Vigilantism
(GD) The social problems are not being considered, the effect this will have on social behaviour and keeping order. We don’t at present have high unemployment in the area but wait a year for the effect on social problems.
(CS) Regarding debt advice, there is the Financial Inclusion Fund, and there has been positive work with the CAB and the Big Lottery Fund?
(GD) Funding is running out, the Law Society recognises this, but it is how it is spent that needs to be specifically recognised.
(SC) We need to look at what is available and how it is best used.
(CS) Stating that she has with her the Law Society’s alternative proposals.
(GD) Its how to spend and detailed proposals, we need to take remedial steps to maintain law and order.
(SC) The government may save £X amount on legal aid, but what will this do to extra costs for The Police, The Court, Criminal Proceedings, Social Services and Hospitals.
(SN) There has been no global exercise on knock on effects. Last Friday I was listening Justine Green discussing the country like GB PLC, very interesting look at profit and loss analysis and debt, trying to work with government and assist with funding in the right ways. As Solicitors we get the impression that no-one listens to us, the Bar do a far better job. We sell our client’s and not ourselves (I for example have not had a pay rise for 15 years and so it is not about that). If the Government is saying we can’t spend on this, we need to look at what we can spend on and as a profession can make suggestions that will save money. The system is close to meltdown, people are miserable, we need to pick up morale, decide where money is better spent and this might help the Government as well.
(CS) Absolutely correct, listening has been set up and she couldn’t agree more. MP’s are trying and she is here today, it is something that should continue.
(CB) We want to be heard on sensible issues, it’s not about Prisoner’s complaining of itchy prison clothes, bad mattresses or immigration matters because someone has cat. Its people with no choice like whether or not they get to see their children, they have to go to Court no matter what.
(SC) Its a fair comment, back to the provisions of Domestic Violence, Objective evidence needs to be defined. Its fine for legal aid if someone’s ex-husband has broken their arm but if the ex has threatened to break an arm or worse to kill. SC: reading out comment forwarded prior to the meeting by Sophie Smith, Greenland Houchen: -
The proposed changes will preclude many from legal aid, except in circumstances where there has been domestic violence. Although I understand from the Legal Aid Roadshow I attended that the domestic violence definition will now include psychological and emotional abuse, objective evidence of this will be needed (ie an injunction in place, ongoing criminal proceedings or a conviction). A large number of matrimonial clients experience abuse of one kind or another for which it is impossible to obtain "objective evidence" - without it they will have no access to legal aid. Lots of vulnerable people will choose not to make an application to Court for fear of having to represent themselves just because they don't fall within a strictly defined category”
Where is the evidence, where is legal aid?
(SC) Suggesting that these sorts of things would be reported to the police and this would be evidence. Confirming that she has taken this point on board from the campaign.
(SN) Suggestion: It seems that the Government are taking the advice of Harriet Harman on this knowing that it is not successful, and ploughing on. We could look at the American way of diverting at the Police Stations, to Counselling scheme for help rather than to Court, something you can elect to do. In the long run more people would come forward knowing they wont end up in prison. More effective than the current system where almost half end in acquittals. Yes there would be set up costs, but far more effective in the long run.
(CF) Agree with SN: and likewise parents who have harmed children wont come forward, wont admit and cannot get help at present.
(SN) A global view of things is needed.
(GD) Commonsense reforms.
With regard to Debt matters, there are people on very low income or benefits being lent tens of thousands of pounds that they cant pay back. They are harassed by companies, debts are sold on and people are distressed and ignore the situation. There needs to be control, they shouldnt be able to borrow in the first place, control and regulation is needed and will in turn reduce cases.
(CS) Debt/Housing excellent points raised
(RB) Turning to Civil side of the money saving reform and access to justice. Clinical negligence legal aid is going to be withdrawn but its very difficult to see the logic. Are you familiar with the Compensation Recovery Unit – A Government department? A Government claw back scheme where the Government takes per annum £10 -£12 million from successful claims, where in fact the legal aid cost per annum for clinical negligence legal aid is £16 - £17Million. The cost of clinical negligence legal aid are in fact paltry compared to the benefits of those claiming compensation.
The Government refer to, and David Cameron has quoted, “The Compensation Culture” and “Ambulance Chasers” which was brought out by the Insurance companies, and the Government seem to pandering towards the Insurance companies needs. The insurance companies of course get paid for their policies. From a Solicitor’s point of view t is actually about concern and helping people who need it for example:
A paraplegic case. Despite many warnings nothing was picked up by the medical profession and my client is now therefore in a wheelchair. Under the new regime my client would not be eligible for legal aid and would have no access to justice. Solicitors would just not be able to take the case on. Compensation is only paid in these cases if someone is at fault, and therefore to save costs the NHS need to stop being negligent.
(DJ) I was involved in campaigning for the last reforms in 1999 which created travesty and have only just about resolved the cost issues. Personally I would benefit without legal aid, I would be able to cherry pick the really good cases. I have been to meet with Keith Smith, who then wrote to Crispin Blunt and I have received no answers. Legal aid needs to be re-focused to those who need it the most: -
Case 1. Husband and Wife have a child of 3, child is paraplegic. The detail should have been picked up as early as scan stage and the parents should have been given the option to continue with pregnancy, the family’s choice. Child born with lower limb problems and spinal surgery only chance of improvement and this was unsuccessful. In two weeks time these client’s would have no access to legal aid? How would they fund this case, where would the money come from? It would cost tens of thousands, it would be defended and these are deserving group of people who would not have access to justice. I apologise for being on my soap box but the proposals are attacking the most vulnerable.
(RH) The perception of “The Compensation Culture” is actually believed and does not exist. There are of course bad eggs in every profession but very very few in ours. Solicitors want to look after their client’s yet the insurance companies who brought about the idea of “The compensation culture” have done very well out of all this.
(RB) We’re all pleased the referral fees have been abolished these of course encouraged claims.
(SN) I don’t really want to bring “Thatcher” in to this but she protected legal aid. Blair however seemed put off by the Maxwell and Footballers getting legal aid and we had the contributions and the Merits tests. Actual legal aid costs were less in the 80’s than they were in the 90’s. This is due to the administration costs. There are three administration analysts at Norwich and if you are self employed, the papers have to go to Nottingham for merit testing, and the overall costs of this are phenomenal. In fact if legal aid was available to everyone but you had the choice not to take it and pay privately then the legal aid costs returned at the end of successful claims.
(DJ) A solution for clinical negligence could be that legal aid covers disbursements only the case could be taken on a CFA basis which would be win/win and in the long run self funding.
(RB) Excellent suggestion, also suggested similar by APIL. Paid disbursements, no huge fees and only get fees when the case succeeds – most would go for that. Disbursements for medical experts up to £50,000. This would all be pulled back at the end of the claim. I’m very concerned that these points have all been made already by the Law Society and the Bar.
(SC) Its not a case of money for the legal profession profiting its who suffers, the ordinary people, single mums. There the matter of inheritance tax issues, cant be done no win no fee, if the client has no property, no money there is no way of Solicitors being paid, only when the property is sold in 25 years time and who’s to say you are still practising then?
(CB) The Banks have been taxed, and some of the political justification was based on the fact that the institution of the City is the envy of the world, and many banks and companies come here to do business based on that "protection" given by the system. It was therefore considered appropriate that those companies contribute to the upkeep and integrity of that system. I make the same point of the legal system, and the city based law firms who attract significant numbers of clients to the UK because of the protection given by a legal system that is respected and envied the world over. It would therefore be appropriate to tax either those companies having legal work done in the UK, or the profits of the firms doing the work so as to contribute to the upkeep of the legal system, including access to justice through legal aid.
(GD) Again we the legal profession is looked at from London point of view, where as in fact here private practices have overheard of 80/90%.
(RH) The Lawyer top 200 law firms are Linklaters and Herbert Smith report profits of 56% in comparison to local firms where the figure is as little as 10% profit.
(RB) My daughter works for a London firm in Commercial Property, a few years qualified and earns twice as much as me already. It is not a representation of the legal profession as a whole.
(CB) We need to be proud of our profession and look after our clients
(GD) Again with London the issue of tax avoidance. The Government should do more to raise money by cracking down on tax avoidance by high earners in the legal profession.
(SN) Interestingly the Government spent £130 Billion pounds bailing out the banks and the cost of legal aid funding is 1/5000 of that amount.
(SC) Drawing the meeting to a close and stating that the message is, the legal profession are concerned for the ordinary people and want to work with Government as £10 saved here will cost £25 over there. Our advice is that perhaps you are trying to save in the wrong places.
(CS) I have taken on board your points and will raise these with my minister. It may be useful to have email address or to in fact continue discussions in the future.
(CE) will provide Chloe Smith’s office with email addresses of attendees.
(RH) Thanking Chloe Smith for her attendance and confirming The Norfolk and Norwich Law Society would be happy to continue to advise on this matter and perhaps arrange for further meetings.