Criminal barristers vote 2:1 to accept government legal aid deal


Crime: barristers get back to work

Criminal law barristers yesterday voted two to one in favour of calling off their industrial action and accept the deal offered by the government.

However, fewer than half of the Criminal Bar Association’s 4,000 members voted, despite constant exhortations over the past fortnight to have their say.

The CBA membership was balloted on this question: “Do you wish to continue ‘no returns’ and days of action until all the cuts and reductions in [solicitors’] contracts are abandoned?”

Some 1,878 votes were cast, of which 1,249 (67%) said ‘no’, and 629 (33%) said ‘yes’.

This means the CBA will suspend its action in return for the Ministry of Justice (MoJ) suspending the 6% cut to the Advocates Graduated Fee Scheme until after next year’s election – 89% of criminal barristers work solely under this scheme – and a resumption of proper engagement between the two.

The agreement sparked a massive debate over the past fortnight both among barristers and between barristers and solicitors, with opponents arguing that it had shattered the unprecedented unity that had been built up between the two sides of the profession and had hung solicitors out to dry.

On Wednesday, CBA vice-chairman Tony Cross QC published a lengthy critique of the actions of solicitors in opposing the government cuts, arguing that there has been nothing like the same level of unity among solicitors as among barristers.

He said: “Our relationship with the leadership of the Criminal Law Solicitors Association and London Criminal Courts Solicitors Association seems badly damaged. I am sorry that that has happened. I dare say that had they been in the same position as us with the MoJ, they would have taken the same decision and by a similar route.

“Do you believe that solicitors would have refused to accept the withdrawal of the 17.25% fee cuts until the Bar had got what they wanted? What would have been the reaction of their solicitor members?”





Leave a Comment

By clicking Submit you consent to Legal Futures storing your personal data and confirm you have read our Privacy Policy and section 5 of our Terms & Conditions which deals with user-generated content. All comments will be moderated before posting.

Required fields are marked *
Email address will not be published.

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

Blog


NFTs, the courts and the role of injunctions

In May, news broke that a non-fungible token was the subject of a successful injunction made by the Singapore High Court. The NFT in question is part of the very valuable Bored Ape Yacht Club series.


Matthew Pascall

Low-value commercial cases – an achievable challenge for ATE insurers

There are many good claims brought for damages that are likely to be significantly less than twice the cost of bringing the claim. These cases present a real challenge for insurers.


Lawyers who break AML rules face bigger, more public fines

Last month, two all-party parliamentary groups published a joint economic crime manifesto that sets out a “comprehensive list of pragmatic reforms” designed to tackle the UK’s dirty money crisis.


Loading animation