header-logo header-logo

09 October 2024
Issue: 8089 / Categories: Legal News , Profession , Criminal , Legal aid focus
printer mail-detail

Law Society: scale back or withdraw over criminal legal aid

Criminal solicitors have been advised by their own professional body to consider quitting rather than ‘hanging on’ if they find criminal legal aid work financially unviable

The Law Society crossed the threshold this week into recommending firms stop waiting for a government decision on fees, review the viability of each part of their criminal practice and, if not viable, stop all or part of their police station and court work.

Last November, it issued a practice note advising solicitors on circumstances where they might refuse police station and court work—areas which received a 9% increase in fees rather than the minimum 15% recommended by the 2021 criminal legal aid independent review (CLAIR). In January, its judicial review against the government’s failure to implement CLAIR succeeded. The general election thwarted action on this, and the new government’s first budget is not until 30 October.

The Ministry of Justice (MoJ) has now said it will announce its decision on fee rates in November—but has asked firms to tender before this for ten-year legal aid contracts due to start next year.

However, incoming Law Society president Richard Atkinson said: ‘We can no longer ask firms to hold on in the hope of action from government that may never come.

‘We recommend firms examine the viability of each type of criminal legal aid work they undertake to decide if they should scale back or withdraw altogether until there is meaningful action by the new government.’

An MoJ spokesperson said: ‘The new government inherited a justice system under enormous strain and a criminal legal aid system facing significant challenges.

‘Criminal defence lawyers play an essential role in ensuring that justice is done. While any decision on future government funding is subject to the upcoming Spending Review, we are committed to working with the legal profession to support the sustainability of the market both now and in the future.’

Issue: 8089 / Categories: Legal News , Profession , Criminal , Legal aid focus
printer mail-details

MOVERS & SHAKERS

Cripps—Radius Law

Cripps—Radius Law

Commercial and technology practice boosted by team hire

Switalskis—Grimsby

Switalskis—Grimsby

Firm expands with new Grimsby office to serve North East Lincolnshire

Slater Heelis—Will Newman & Lucy Spilsbury

Slater Heelis—Will Newman & Lucy Spilsbury

Property team boosted by two solicitor appointments

NEWS
A High Court ruling involving the Longleat estate has exposed the fault line between modern family building and historic trust drafting. Writing in NLJ this week, Charlotte Coyle, director and family law expert at Freeths, examines Cator v Thynn [2026] EWHC 209 (Ch), where trustees sought approval to modernise trusts that retain pre-1970 definitions of ‘child’, ‘grandchild’ and ‘issue’
Fresh proposals to criminalise ‘nudification’ apps, prioritise cyberflashing and non-consensual intimate images, and even ban under-16s from social media have reignited debate over whether the Online Safety Act 2023 (OSA 2023) is fit for purpose. Writing in NLJ this week, Alexander Brown, head of technology, media and telecommunications, and Alexandra Webster, managing associate, Simmons & Simmons, caution against reactive law-making that could undermine the Act’s ‘risk-based and outcomes-focused’ design
Recent allegations surrounding Peter Mandelson and Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor have reignited scrutiny of the ancient common law offence of misconduct in public office. Writing in NLJ this week, Simon Parsons, teaching fellow at Bath Spa University, asks whether their conduct could clear a notoriously high legal hurdle
A landmark ruling has reshaped child clinical negligence claims. Writing in NLJ this week, Jodi Newton, head of birth and paediatric negligence at Osbornes Law, explains how the Supreme Court in CCC v Sheffield Teaching Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust [2026] UKSC 5 has overturned Croke v Wiseman, ending the long-standing bar on children recovering ‘lost years’ earnings
A Court of Appeal ruling has drawn a firm line under party autonomy in arbitration. Writing in NLJ this week, Masood Ahmed, associate professor at the University of Leicester, analyses Gluck v Endzweig [2026] EWCA Civ 145, where a clause allowing arbitrators to amend an award ‘at any time’ was held incompatible with the Arbitration Act 1996
back-to-top-scroll