Criminal solicitors’ chief tells ‘scab’ firms to “hang their heads in shame”

Waddington: action was clearly a resounding success

The chairman of the Criminal Law Solicitors Association has hit out at law firms that sought to take advantage of their rivals’ absence from court during Monday’s morning of action against the legal aid cuts.

Bill Waddington said “there can be naming and shaming, subject to how people feel about it”.

Writing on the CLSA website following the high-profile action, when solicitors supported criminal barristers not appearing in court by taking part in a training day, Mr Waddington acknowledged that firms had been entitled to carry on working as normal on 6 January, and thanked those that had only served their own clients, rather than anyone else’s.

He said: “Sadly, and I’m afraid to say inevitably, some saw this as an opportunity for a short-term gain, a chance to show their protesting opponents how fickle clients can be, when persuaded to sign the handful of legal aid applications you took to court with you.

“One incident I know about in West Yorkshire where one firm did attend court and always declared that it was going to do so but nevertheless also helped itself to clients of other firms who were not in attendance and submitted legal aid orders where they were able to do so. Those people should really hang their heads in shame. They have no place in this honourable profession. May their sleep be forever interrupted…

“Actions like this leave a very bad taste in the mouth and damage co-operation within communities but we are bigger than that and the clock cannot be turned back. We know who are our enemies within.”

However, Mr Waddington emphasised that it was only a small minority that had acted this way, describing 6 January as “clearly a resounding success” that attracted largely sympathetic media coverage.

“The odd dissenter cannot run the criminal justice system. Given the success of [Monday], there will be more training days,” he said. “I hope that areas, firms, individual solicitors who decided for whatever reason not to participate in the historic events of 6 January 2014 will give more thought to the government’s proposals next time.”

Mr Waddington, who is head of criminal defence at Hull firm Williamsons, also welcomed indications that the Ministry of Justice is “thinking carefully about what happens next”, given that it was initially supposed to have responded to its most recent consultation on the reforms by 18 December, which then became 7 January and is now looking like the end of the month.

“We know that the figures produced by Otterburn from the financial information supplied by over 100 firms have cast a very big cloud over the MoJ’s proposals to cut and consolidate in this fragile market of ours,” he said.

“We also know that there are some strong financial arguments under discussion which hopefully will go to demonstrate that the ‘required savings of £220 million by 2018’ are not required. It has always been the argument of the CLSA that if savings are necessary then they can be found in the wastage and inefficiencies within the system that we are only too happy to identify to the MOJ, if indeed it is savings they are really after.

“We have also consistently argued that cuts made in the previous three years are still working their way through the system and that, combined with a reduction in charging of offenders, considerable savings are already working their way through the system.”


    Readers Comments

  • Alan says:

    Sorry, have I missed something?

    Last time I looked I thought we lived in a democracy!

    That means we all have the right to agree or disagree with a course of action! To join in or not join in!

    Now, don’t get me wrong, legal aid is important but in case you hadn’t noticed we live in a bankrupt (in all but name) democracy.

    So, lambast those who didn’t throw their lot in with those protesting all you want. But don’t be naive enough to think everyone will agree with you.

    Just saying . . .

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.


Will solicitors finally be fans of transparency now?

Since the introduction of the SRA’s transparency rules in December 2018, I have been an advocate for law firms going further then the regulatory essentials.

A two-point plan to halve the size of the SRA

I have joked for many years that you could halve the size (and therefore cost) of the Solicitors Regulation Authority overnight by banning both client account and sole practitioners.

Key cyber and data security questions to ask a legal IT provider

One of the growing priorities that law firms face when considering a legal technology provider is cyber and data security, such as their responsibilities and cyber incident management.

Loading animation