Criminal solicitors “losing moral compass” – and not just because of falling legal aid pay

Crime: lawyers pushing clients toward early guilty pleas

Defence lawyers bear partial responsibility for miscarriages of justice, and better ethics training and spending time with ordinary people are as likely to reverse “moral decline” as boosting pay, according to new research.

Writing in a collection of essays published last week by The Justice Gap, No Defence: lawyers and miscarriages of justice, Cardiff Law School academic, Dr Daniel Newman, said his empirical research with three criminal defence firms working in and around the magistrates’ court of a large city showed that while falling legal aid rates had undermined incentives to provide quality service, singling out legal aid may “provide too easy an answer”.

He suggested that the profit motive leads lawyers to lose their “moral compass”, recounting an “unending barrage of critical comments about clients, poking fun at their supposed lack of intelligence, questioning the moral fortitude of their perceived class and routinely assuming factual guilt”.

Significantly, in light of the outcry over claims that the government’s proposed price competitive tendering (PCT) plans would incentivise lawyers to recommend guilty pleas, Dr Newman said: “Lawyers devoted as little time as possible to their clients’ cases, talking over them and cutting short their stories, regularly pushing them toward early guilty pleas and sabotaging those that got through to trial by neglecting to properly prepare”.

An explanation, which had “some veracity” was a move within society – including the legal profession – away from “old-fashioned notions of service” which ultimately resulted in clients receiving a “lesser product” from defence lawyers operating a “factory model”.

There was a “most likely a circular relationship between diminished funding and sullied morals”, he speculated. But simply raising remuneration was not the only answer, he said.

“My suggestion for improving the situation would be… increase and enhance ethical training for such lawyers. Those lawyers who would be funded by the state to uphold the most fundamental principles of justice must spend more time reflecting on the meaning of their practice, exploring its social significance.”

The recommendation mirrors a proposal made by the Legal Education and Training Review, which reported last month. It advised bringing a stronger focus on professional ethics throughout education and training.

Dr Newman continued that beyond a “managerialist outlook” encouraged by law schools or the “tick-box activity” of conduct regulation, client relations and feedback should be promoted, for instance in an “annual legal MOT”.

Further, “law schools might better integrate themselves in the local community, fostering face-to-face relationships with those they would serve”, he suggested.

He concluded: “As a calling, such lawyers should spend less time passing the buck and more taking responsibility for their own actions.”

    Readers Comments

  • James Vine says:

    Throughout my 35 years of practising as a criminal lawyer, I have always suffered from the crippling disadvantage of not being an academic, thus am too inept to comment on such a learned tome. Except to say this.
    What a load of insulting and patronising twaddle.
    (Sorry Neil!)

  • Andrew Havery says:

    Moronic & ill-informed. Stay in academia where you are safe from the real world.

  • Dr Newman certainly didn’t evaluate my firm where have very good community ties and provide high quality advice with integrity. There are factory firms out there but it is poor research that generalises from limited empirical data.

  • Richard Baker says:

    Dr Newman’s research is flawed. He researched three firms. How old were the Solicitors he was dealing with? How close to retirement? Their cynicism is not typical of Solicitors in Coventry and Warwickshire, where I can assure you we fight for our clients, and prepare for trials.

  • This research doesn’t equate with my own considerable experience of criminal work. We could not do the job if we didn’t adhere to a strict code of ethics, and certainly where I practice we do not live in some rarified social stratosphere but take part in the local community. As for “pushing clients towards guilty pleas and sabotaging those who got through to trial by neglecting properly to prepare”, nothing could be further from the truth. Is the author mistaking good robust analysis of the evidence and realistic advice on the prospects of success for something else?

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.


No larger firm can ignore the demands of innovation – that was the clear message from our most recent roundtable: “The law firm of the future”, sponsored by LexisNexis Enterprise Solutions. It comes in many forms, predominantly but not just technology, and is not simply a case of automating process. Expertise and process are not mutually exclusive.


20 September 2018
Simon McCrum

Why don’t lawyers do what you ask them to do?

Having been team leader, department head, division head and managing partner, I understand well the frustration (and anger) that managing partners and CEOs voice to me: “We’ve asked them a dozen times, but still they aren’t doing what we need!”

Read More